Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 162

The RFA table
Something's wrong. In Mfield's sections, it keeps on putting 1 in the oppose section. Yet, there are no opposes. I had to revert this 3 times. Is this a malfunction? Either that, of ST47 doesn't like Mfield....  Simon KSK  20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it is the ghost in the machine, exercising its franchise.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed a (totally redundant) # from the oppose section in the RfA concerned. Maybe this will stop the bot from adding 'ghost !votes' :P.  Richard 0612  20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

ST47 said on it's fixed on IRC.-- Patton t / c 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fixed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it is related to wikEd and Safari. wikEd often inserts extra returns in that do not appear until you press save so you have to be in the habit of previewing 100% of edits to remove any that have crept in at that point. I think it did that once there and in combination with an edit conflict a comment got duplicated. I removed the comment but maybe a # got left behind. Anyway its an annoyance to me with wikEd that I put up with because the markup is so useful, I should really file a bug report. Mfield (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes
I noticed Keepscases oppose on Amalthea's RfA. Loads of people ganged up on him for saying that userbox was offensive. Sure it was so long ago it shouldn't matter, but if someone is offended by a userbox, by definition that userbox is offensive, you can't really argue with that. Just a point I'd like to make.-- Patton t / c 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...okay! :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your username offends me, Patton123. By your reasoning, it is offensive. Please report yourself to UAA immediately. Tan   &#124;   39  20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My username doesn't offend you.-- Patton t / c 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust you see the point though.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That raises an interesting thought though: Say my great-grandfather has been killed as a soldier fighting George S. Patton in World War I and I hate Patton for that. Does that make an username with "Patton" in it offensive?  So Why  07:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite simple. That username would be offensive to you, but only you. We only block usernames which are either direct attacks, or those which cause offensive to a large population, not just one person. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's faulty logic to the extreme. Women covering their faces?  By definition, the fact that women don't cover their faces in most parts of the world is offensive because there are cultures that still expect it.  Women covering their faces?  By definition, the fact that women do cover their faces in some parts of the world is offensive because most parts of the world find that to be an outdated motiv.  Women, minorities, homosexuals, inter-racial couples, have all been deemed by some to be offensive.  That doesn't make it so.  The fact that somebody is offended, does not mean that the item that offended them, was in fact offensive.--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're either twisting the meaning of terms there or postulating some sort of objective offensiveness; if the predicate "offends" applies to a subject, the prior application of the attribute "offensive" to that subject is implied. Skomorokh  07:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he was trying to say that offensive varies from culture to culture, context to context, and Wikipedia is NPOV. Which means very few things are "objectively" offensive -- offensive in the NPOV context. For example, I might argue we find vandalism or even copyvios offensive, but Wikipedia does not censor profanity, nudity, sexuality, violence, heresy, controversial topics, or bigotry (well, we report on it). Therefore in our "culture" very few things are offensive, and just because someone was offended does not make it so. Cultural norms are fuzzy, probabilistic things, but they do exist and dictate things like this. Andre (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ok I see your point-- Patton t / c 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We cannot say that some is "offensive" simply because somebody takes offense to it.  I've known people who were offended when their name was innocently mispronounced, because they didn't get the raise they wanted, etc.  While it is easy to see how what is offensive in one culture isn't offensive in another, other things can be taken as offensive that most would not deem offensive.  Similarly, two people from the same background might not take the same thing as offensive---the line between good comedy and crude jokes is often a fine line that is determined not by the content, but rather by the person making the joke and the audience.  Chris Rock can say the word "Nigger" a hundred times and have people rolling on the floor each time, I say it once, and I'd be labelled a racist.  Heck, even if I quoted Chris Rock, *I* might get in trouble!  Defining what is offensive is not as easy as saying, "If somebody finds it offensive it is by definition offensive."--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Racist! ~ mazca  t 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall someone (might have been Kelly Martin, if not I apologise to her) opposing anyone with non-encyclopedic userboxes. I think it was overlapping with the time that she opposed if people hadn't been backed by a WikiProject.

People have, do and will oppose at RfA for a huge variety of reasons and the community (in the way it responds to the criticism) and the Crats (in the way they weight them) will take each on its own merits. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So tell us honestly; when reading through an RfA with a view to close, do you pass over bad opposes while gleefully cackling "HA, shoddy reasoning you idiot, sttttttruck. Little do you know I haven't counted your opposes since 2005!" and other things in that vein? :) Skomorokh  13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since passing RfB, I've done piles of CHU work, but I've closed very few RfAs so far, and none of those that I have done have been difficult to judge. Curious really, it's not for lack of interest in RfA, as my occasional participation (based on frequent reading) here gives witness. It seems that either I'm offline when RfAs close or I miss them. I suspect it's mostly the former, but I have been known to make errors...


 * That said, I wouldn't say that I'd categorise my reaction to what I perceive as weak reasons for opposing in the kind of terms you describe and I rarely see comments at RfA that I think should be discounted out of hand. Appropriate discussion often follows weak arguments in opposition. These are often instructive, and can lead in surprising directions, even to firming the oppose into a well-justified point. This is useful not just to Crats, but also those who have yet to !vote and those who have !voted, but are still reading and are open-minded enough to reconsider their own positions. Sorry, that's not a simple answer, but it's not a simple question. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a question in jest, and did not deserve the insightful answer you gave; thank you sincerely. Your remarks on discussing opposes are encouraging.  Skomorokh  14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A pleasure. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any RFAs from 2008 where it would have made a difference if crats "didn't count" votes with poor rationales, so it's not making a practical difference, even if it's theoretically interesting which votes they "don't count". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it rarely matters, but I consider the strength of arguments anyway in close cases. I'll typically reformulate an RfA after discounting poor reasoning on both sides of the isle and see how it would affect the closing. Poor reasoning either way tends to be balanced out by people that take better reasoning into account and give their opinion accordingly. RfA works to the extent people do that. - Taxman Talk 14:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate the point I tried to make in the RfA: I wish someone, *anyone*, who thinks these userboxes are a good idea would have the courage to say "yes, I display these userboxes because I think it's funny to ridicule others' beliefs. Yes, I like to pat myself on the back about how very intelligent I am. Deal with it." Instead we always get a lot of hemming and hawing and "OMG YOU'RE STEREOTYPING ME BECAUSE I'M AN ATHEIST". To the candidate's credit, he/she did admit that the userbox in question was confrontational, although I still question the intelligence and/or honesty of someone who claims a userbox telling people their long-standing beliefs are absurd isn't meant to be "smug". Keepscases (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the candidate's right to display his beliefs. All the userbox said was "I'm an atheist"; nowhere did it say "I'm right and you're wrong". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They are referring to the userbox that says, "This user believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as creationism.", basically ridiculing religion, and by extention, those who are religious. Useight (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually know something about these issues because the ACLU has been a very positive and potent force in protecting Christians, Muslims, agnostics and others against overreaching judges and federal, local and state governments in the U.S. Thanks to Keepscases for looking at diffs at RFA and being vigilant about this stuff, because some userboxes are problematic for admin candidates.  The Flying spaghetti monster is a perfect example of people who thought they were being clever and helpful (in that case, regarding the Kansas evolution hearings), but were neither.  The intelligent-design faction was able to say, with some justification, that the point of the analogy was to laugh at the beliefs of local Christians, and by extension to laugh at the Christians, and that helped them win their argument and get a short-term change in the Kansas school curriculum in 2005.  I don't know how other people draw the line on Wikipedia; my personal position is that we're going to push good contributors away if we tell them they can't express their beliefs on their own userpage (and I think most editors won't understand what we're saying if we object to the FSM userbox, even though I think we're right), but RFA is another story ... it's okay to treat a divisive userbox as a negative factor at RFA, because admins are supposed to be reducing drama, not inviting it.  It's fine to talk about religious issues on the talk pages of articles where the issues are relevant, but it's just unproductive for a person perceived as an authority figure (shows how little people know about admins :) to bring up a divisive issue where the context didn't already exist. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. I personally think users should absolutely have the right to display any userbox they wish on their own userpages--but the contents of said userboxes and/or the candidate's judgment in displaying them should and will be brought up at an RfA.  Keepscases (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I agree with that, which is why I support your opposes on UB's... UB's are a valid rationale for opposes. To move away from the hot topic of religion.  Imagine a person whose UB said something that was a blantant BLP violation.  That person's RfA would be killed as the person apparently doesn't understand BLP.--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 18:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't related to the discussion, and I think it would be pretty easy to open up the can of worms of dissenting viewpoints. Comments by Dank55 and Keepscases regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster and religion are inappropriate and don't relate to the RfA process. Please keep WT:RFA to the discussion of RfAs. I think we've all accepted that even in the close case of a hard-to-call RfA, a userbox oppose on something that doesn't impact the ability of an admin to carry out his roles or impact judgment will not be making the difference either way. So unless anyone has something new to add on the subject of the role of bureaucrats, which I think has been pretty well trod, let's drop the controversial aspects of this. If anyone would like to prove me wrong in my unyielding rationalism please take to my talk page and I'd be glad to help you get rid of your dramatic debate impulse. Or, better yet, work on an article. 71.236.67.221 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that someone forgot to login. And here's another rfa where people opposed due to a userbox.-- Giants27  T  C  00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of 'em. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I advise everyone here to not forget the fact that every human on earth is inherently biased. Whether or not it is made public through a userbox is at the discretion of the user. But whether or not this spaghetti monster userbox was placed on the userpage, this user would still have those beliefs. One could argue (and this is just devil's advocate) that this user is more truthful and trustworthy because they made an addition to their userpage that was a bit confrontational to certain other users that may view it (knowing that even if removed, it was still able to be found historically); they were proud of their beliefs just as a Christian or Muslim is proud of theirs. I personally believe that a userpage should not really count very much toward an RfA !vote. Granted exceptions are made there: if you have a KKK userbox, I'll probably not !vote for you because of that, but generally light-hearted, humorous additions to the userpage shouldn't be a big deal and for the most part should be appreciated as funny. Now I could go on for days about the Kansas School Board, but I'll save that for a future debate. :-) ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 01:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat divided on this topic. On the one hand, I strongly dislike userboxes that express a POV - any POV - and would delete the lot of them if I could, because they only ever seem to provoke arguments (like this one did). On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd ever oppose an RFA based on a userbox alone. It depends what it said I suppose ('this user thinks vandalising Wikipedia is cool!' would be a pretty bad sign...), but in general, how an admin candidate behaves is much more important than what they've got on their userpage. So in this case, while I actually agree that Amalthea's userbox was somewhat unwise and inappropriate, I also think it was pretty silly to oppose him for it. Robofish (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the opposition votes in clearly successful RFAs are done to "raise awareness" of some issue. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BAG Nomination
I have a current nomination discussion taking place here. Any and every comment appreciated. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTNOW
I see a lot of mention of WP:NOTNOW on this page. I am wondering, would I be put into that category if I were to try to become an admin at this point? Sam Barsoom 04:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that would likely be the case. You have about 400 edits, and most candidates pass with several thousand. Keep in mind, however, that being a Wikipedian isn't about adminship, so keep up the good work as an editor! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have just told Sam Barsoom to make 6600 meaningless edits and come back. I'd like to suggest that edit count is not how you judge whether someone is ready for RfA. (Also, it's seven thousand this month? Do you even notice the edit count inflation when you're doing it?) rspεεr (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec x2) Note that he said "several", not "seven". Useight (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A candidate with 6600 edits that were essentially spelling corrections done by a bot would be criticised as "inexperienced". 2000 edits or so, all manual, across all areas of Wikipedia could easily be enough.  But with a couple hundred, nobody's going to feel they can properly evaluate the candidate (although the vote should probably be 0/0/50 in that case). Wily D  11:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sam: Yes, unfortunately users with very few edits do not succeed. This is most often because when gauging a candidate, most editors like to see a larger amount of edits to determine how you would interact with others, how you edit pages, etc. Its not based on the numbers, its only beneficial because we have more information to come to a conclusion.  Syn  ergy 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look at List of failed RfAs (Chronological) and read some of those which are mentioned to have been closed under NOTNOW and you will understand, why that happened, then have a look at Successful requests for adminship to see what the community expects of their admin candidates (at the moment). Your willingness to ask here before just starting an RFA shows a level of CLUEness and I think with some more months of contributing positevely, you can risk jumping into the shark pool try RFA. Regards  So Why  07:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also a link at wp:adco that includes the RfA criteria for several people. That might give you an idea of what people are looking for.  But yes, with only a few hundred edits, you would end up in the NOTNOW category.  While a lot of edits won't say anything about a candidate, too few edits can.  With only a few hundred edits, it is impossible for people to properly vet you and see how you behave over time in different scenarios.--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The key is this: Do the sum total of your edits demonstrate:  trustworthiness, knowledge of policy especially in any are you profess to want to work in but also broad policy knowledge, awareness of where your knowledge is weak, some benefit aka "net positive" for you to have the tools, and nothing negative that isn't either old or very much overcompensated for by superstar behavior elsewhere?  Even year-old negatives such as newbie mistakes will require something, even if it's just "I goofed, I learned my lesson as evidenced by my editing the past few months."  Trustworthiness is a combination of "won't deliberately violate the rules/abuse the position/publish deleted edits" and "won't accidentally or carelessly violate the rules - too bad/won't delete the main page/won't break the wiki/won't carelessly disclose private information from deleted edits/etc."
 * With only 400 edits, and no evidence of a long history on a sister project, there's just no way for us to make that evaluation.
 * Different editors have different minimum standards. I personally like to see a couple thousand edits spread over 6-9 months, not counting months with few edits.  I also look for a reasonable amount of policy, admin-ish, article, and discussion-related posts, with at least a handful of edits in most but not necessarily all of the other areas such as Template:, Portal:, File:, etc. "Mandatory-for-me" areas include at least a few AFD, at least a few other-xFD, and at least a few CSD actions, especially those where you express an opinion and back it up with a policy or guideline.  xFD/CSD isn't the only admin-ish area on the Wiki.  I expect that after 2000 edits, a candidate will have made at least a handful of edits to other admin-ish areas.
 * As far as the overall "flavor" I'm looking for: Ignoring mistakes and bad behavior that has since been corrected, I'm looking for civility, broad policy knowledge, and a reasonable amount of work on actual articles.  GAs and featured content is a big plus, but wikignomes who do cleanup work and have no good- or featured-anythings to their credit can make good admins as well.  Most of my article-space edits are gnomish.  This isn't to say I won't support someone who doesn't fit this criteria, just that I'll need to look harder for reasons to support. I've supported someone with only a month or two and way under 2000 edits, but he had some unique things about his application that you and 99% of other candidates don't have.  There is something you can do to "beat" the minimums, but personally I actively discourage it:  In your first 1900 edits and 5 months, create a few pieces of featured content, actively participate in and exhibit leadership in at least 1 major policy-revision debate, adopt a couple users and get accolades for doing so, participate in and exhibit leadership in a Wikiproject or two, exhibit leadership and policy knowledge in xFD discussions, etc.  In other words, do all the things an experienced editor would have done but on a compressed time scale while still keeping a cool head.  Very few editors attempt such a feat, as most of us have a life beyond Wikipedia.  Rather than attempting to do this in a compressed time scale just to get the bit faster, relax, pick and choose the areas that interest you, and throw in an admin-ish area or two, and come back in 6-9 months, and you'll be more than ready. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:41, 18 February 2009


 * In the interests of transparency, the following is posted by Hers fold  (t/a/c) on behalf of Sam, who is currently unable to edit:
 * Thank you for the informative comments. It has really put the whole thing in perspective. I will look into the various links that have been posted here while I take a short wiki-break. Sam Barsoom 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal
There's an ongoing poll on Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_removal. —  Aitias  // discussion 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is a mess
Note: If the show/hide templates do not work as expected, enable JavaScript davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The main RfA page is a mess. It's way too long and you can't see clearly who is standing. I would like to suggest that the nominations are linked but not transcluded when they are live. You have to navigate to the subpage anyway in order to edit it, so it wouldn't take any more time.

As a halfway proposal, we could at least collapse them. For example:
 * (Removed to prevent messy table of contents at the top of the page. Martin 13:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Thoughts? Martin 11:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Added JavaScript note. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are, apparently, some accessibility problems with collapse-boxes; but I've never understood why we don't just link live RfAs. With the size of recent discussions, it would make the page far more navigable: I find myself exclusively accessing RfA's via the report at the top of this talk page, rather than using WP:RFA itself. ~ mazca  t 12:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. The main page as it is takes ages to load if there is more than one decent-sized RfA going on, and the size makes navigation very difficult if the page even bloody loads properly Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that. It's easier to see each one without opening a gazillion tabsif they're all on the one page. Putting collapsible boxes only increases load time.-- Patton t / c 12:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Collapsable boxes don't always work either - I think I had trouble with them using Konquer - but merely linking, not transcluding might work. Of course, AFD is a much bigger hole that way, and they still transclude ... Wily D 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support just linking them. I doubt anyone would really be worse off if they had to click a link to see the RFA.  So Why  12:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been the best use of this page in a very long time. Seraphim &hearts;  14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Now how about just listing the nomination(s) and a link to go to the RfA (instead of show/hide). Like this, but make it a level two header:

Msgj
[ Voice your opinion] (talk page) (37/0/0); Scheduled to end 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

– [text copied from nomination removed to avoid confusion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  ]  Happy‑melon 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Co-Nomination by : [text copied from co-nomination removed to avoid confusion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  ] Martin 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See more about the candidate
 * Discussion about the candidate

 iMatthew //  talk  //  15:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Note: Text of nomination and co-nomination removed to save space and to avoid confusion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

90% of the time I access RfA's via one of the number counting tools available, but sometimes I do go to the RfA page, where I like being able to scroll down the RfA's to see what is going on on several of them at one time. So I do have a small preference for the current set up, but it is not something that I really care one way or another about.--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the table on the main RfA page? It should be..no?  iMatthew //  talk  //  15:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, no, no for the same reason this has been a bad idea every time the dozen other times it's been proposed. We want people judging candidates on their merits, not on who currently has a high score. I personally would like to see the tallies removed as well, but that ain't gonna happen. –  iride scent  16:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this idea and agree with Seraphim.  Dloh  cierekim  15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorse hiding transcluded RFAs behind show/hide on WP:RFA, provided it does not alter the individual nomination pages. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of like it the way it already is. I go to WP:RFA and just click on the infobox link to the RFA I want to edit. Plus, with having all the RFAs showing on one page, I can hit CTRL+F and search for my username to see how many of the current RFAs I have commented on, allowing me to quickly check if anyone has commented on my !vote. Useight (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly tempted to just go ahead and make a change to the page; however, with just two RfAs running at the moment, seeing the benefit would be rather difficult. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose this very strongly. It's much much much easier to just click the edit link. And I don't even have broadband.-- Patton t / c

Not broken, don't fix. The RfA page has always been long when there's 3+ running at once; it's harmless and simplifies navigation for some people. And if others want differently-simplified navigation, they can add a bot table to their own user page and click the names in that. Townlake (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems we're divided on this proposal (roughly 8 support and 4 oppose), so I'm not going to pursue it. I suppose it's just personal preference really. Martin 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"In your own words"
I've noted that this term has been appearing at the end of some questions recently, most notably at the end of the "block and a ban" question. I appreciate that some people would prefer answers that don't look like they've been copied off the policy pages or from other RfAs, but let's face it, exactly how many times can an answer (especially to templated questions that appear on every RfA) possibly be rewritten yet still have the same meaning? Not that I'm criticizing anyone, I'm just curious about this. Thanks. Acalamari 23:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that the main goal of the questioner is to get an answer that is somehow different from the words at Ban. I assume that, for most people, this is more important than being different from other RFAs. Useight (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A language lives from its manifoldness. Usually one thing can be expressed in many, many different ways. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having been new to RfA when my RfA went through, I was annoyed by this question to begin with. It's almost an insult to one's intelligence: questioning whether they can't figure it out from either the policy or the dozens of times it has been answered in recent RfAs. Then you're requested to come up with a real-life analogy. There are only so many left when dozens of people have come up with examples before you (hence my humorously inspired outer space rendition). Policy questions are fine, but just mix them up for every RfA. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 06:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I just got to thinking about that slightly before this was brought up. I've decided to keep the "in your own words" clause whenever I ask the block/ban Q; if the editor is aware of the fact that this Q goes up at just about every RfA, then he can review WP:Ban and review answers from past RfA's, and he should be able to formulate a good answer to the Q. If the candidate doesn't know that this Q is frequently asked (which he should know), then he's on his own. He'll have to figure it out for himself. <fake, sarcastic, unsympathetic sob> flaminglawyer 17:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Most questions that ask users about policy are pretty silly anyway. They are basically textbook questions which require the user to go to the relevant page and rewrite the relevant part. Not difficult. It's a poor way of seeing if someone "knows" policy.  Majorly  talk  18:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * True. But sometimes, when the user doesn't go to the relevant page and rewrite the relevant part, it says a lot that is relevant. We do want admins who read policies before pressing the button! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 15:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the impression that some of the people who repeatedly ask these questions simply enjoy watching RfA aspirants "jump through hoops" on command (much like trained seals). It's one of the distasteful aspects of RfA. --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The disturbing thing is that despite the fact that the questions basically only require a quick read of the relevant policy page, a distinct proportion of RfA applicants still manage to get them wrong. ~ mazca  t 19:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Disturbing? If they completely mess up the question, it's simply because they either misunderstood what they were reading, or didn't read it at all, and made a guess. I didn't look at any policies when I answered the template textbook questions on my own RFA. Some people loved the answers - others opposed over them. Ah well.  Majorly  talk  20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. If they want the chainsaw, let'em dance, they knew what they came for, so who cares? NVO (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that asking people to answer questions in their "own words" will encourage the creation of constructed languages. bd2412 T 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between a block and a ban? Well, one is saying "I give up" and the other is saying "Oh god, if I have to deal with this again I'm going to start shooting people". Answers like that would be more appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While it would no doubtly lead to opposition to anyone who did it, I would be amused by a candidate who responded to the questions with the answers you just mentioned. Acalamari 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You will surely get a kick out of my April 1st candidacy then. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad to know that I'm not the only one that has some April 1st hijinks in mind already. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a little something planned, as well. I'm hoping it hasn't been done before. Useight (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You ruin it by announcing it now... you have to make it a surprise ala Kurt Weber's nomination last year... which will forever be ranked (IMO) as one of the best WP pranks ever!--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 21:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no way, I like when people ask the work it would-be admins mess that one could ever construct a language on the work it would ever construct a language on the way, I like when people ask the way anyone could ever construct a language on the block vs. ban question; it's amazing how many would entail! By the work it would-be admins mess that one could ever construct a language on the work it would-be admins mess that one up. Think of the way, I like when people ask their own. Tan   &#124;   39  15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concurb. ~ mazca  t 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So after 4chan, Wikipedia officially adopts ROBOT9000 now? - Mailer Diablo 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's nockers diffifallopy to inventibold new speakybolding. Deep joy. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I onderway owhay eoplepay ouldway espondray if I kedasay it, or a andidatecay sweredanay in igpay atinlay. X  clamation point  05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Moral supports
Requests for adminship/Pyfan brings up the question of how moral supports are interpreted by the community and the closing 'crat(s). It seems to me that such !votes are closer to support than oppose. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  06:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you could conceivably put "moral support" in either the support or oppose list. If you put them under "support", they count as support votes, I guess (though of course it's not a vote). But it does seem to imply something other than whole-hearted support, so I guess that's something for a bureaucrat to consider if the "vote" is close. Dean B (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone who is making a mroal su-pport in htat RFA is saying they don't think the candidate should be an administrator now, but could be later, so the RFA will be closed as a failure presumably.-- Patton t / c 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say right in the middlee. An oppose does not mean "you can never be an admin" it means "I do not feel you can be an admin at the present time" (with a few exceptions). A support, of course, suggests "I feel you can be an admin at this time, and are doing the right things". A moral support is "I do not feel you can be an admin at the present time, but you are going along the right lines"; a little from column A, a little from column B. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But at the end of the day, that's still an oppose, since you don't want them becoming an admin now. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm, my thoughts (and text) when I first opened the edit box started "I think it is closer to an oppose" but the "you are going along the right lines" (while most opposes are opposes because the user in question is doing the wrong thing) push it back towards the middle in my mind. Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, after thinking it over a bit, I'd say moral supports are essentially neutrals. At Pyfan's RfA, I knew the request would be highly unlikely to succeed, and even though I couldn't fully support, I couldn't oppose either. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  16:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay, someone agrees with me for once :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the apocalypse upon us? –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone point me to the first "moral support" that was made on an RfA? Personally, I don't know why they've become so widespread, as I find them very patronising. A nicely-worded oppose gets the same message across without making the false statement that you actually think it would be a good idea to promote the candidate to admin at this time... and when you think about the normal English meaning of the phrase "moral support" it barely even makes sense in the context. ~ mazca  t 13:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who has moral supported a number of times, I do agree that they can send a confusing message. An alternative is to simply add value to the candidate but put the comments in the oppose section without the big fat bold "oppose" before it. e.g.;


 * 1) Great work vandal fighting, but with just 500 edits and very little article work I can't support
 * looks a lot nicer than;


 * 1) Oppose Great work vandal fighting, but with just 500 edits and very little article work I can't support
 * One word, but it does make a lot of difference. Pedro : Chat  13:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I really like that way of thinking - it's a very good point and an effective way of making a "friendly oppose". I'll definitely bear that in mind. ~ mazca  t 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And to see it in action :) (note - I would have opposed this candidate, and I agree fully with the comments on his/her RFA that Mazca made so I'm not using that RFA to proove any kind of point) Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, plagiarism! *shakes fist*. But yes, point taken, it does look much friendlier. ~ mazca  t 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Moral support means "Emotional or psychological backing, as opposed to material help" (Answers.com) and support "without making any contribution beyond the emotional or psychological value of the encouragement" (Wikipedia). If someone supports when there is virtually no chance the candidate will pass, and if they switch their vote if something odd happens and the candidate does appear to have a chance of passing, then they're giving moral support, so it fits the definition. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Crats aren't stupid; they will be able to tell the difference between moral support and real support. So I don't think it really matters.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the leading bold word is something offensive (I want to kill your dog Candidate doesn't have any AIV experience.), the tone of the actual !vote itself is vastly more important when it comes to weighing the overall consensus. I promoted Tadakuni despite the relative closeness of the straight number count, primarily because of how supportive and positive the opposers were. Tone does matter. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. How can I put this gently EVula. You're American. I'm English. I suspect we have a large cultural weight on our shoulders here. Don't get me wrong - I actually have found some (very few but some) Americans who I don't consider to be utterly self centered egotisitcal pricks who think the world stops at their borders. You've probably found the odd Brit you don't consider to be a self-righteous, stuck up, World War II obsessed pompus arse (again - rare). Get my drift on tone and typed words? ;) Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a fellow Brit I entirely agree, I see a vast difference in tone between your two examples. So much so that I will never prefix any vote at RfA with Oppose ever again. Hell, it's the Oppose section anyway for Christ's sake, no need to rub it in. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand the difference between tone and typed words; but if someone were to write "Strong Oppose I have some mild concerns that you aren't familiar enough with our speedy deletion criteria, but other than that, you're a solid bloke", I'm going to put more emphasis on the actual tone (that being "I only have a slight objection to the idea of you as a sysop, since I only find fault in your skillset in a single area") than the "Strong Oppose" prefix. Then again, I also try to eschew such prefixes in any situation where supports and opposes are naturally divided (such as an RfX, but not in, say, AfDs), so this is just my personal take on the behavior. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good edit summary :) - I think my point here is that "tone" is highly subjective. The context of this thread (moral supports) would imply a WP:NOTNOW candidate, and there seems to be no reason to rub salt in the wounds, as Malleus points out above, to these situations. I readily admit I edit with my own slant on British English, and that what I consider a jocular comment can be read as menacing or aggressive. I undertand your take as a bureaucrat EV but tone seems to be the worng word (or at best an optimistic one!). No biggie, of course. Pedro : Chat  21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note in that picture how North America is in green, that means we're more enviormentally sound.-- Giants27  T  C  21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But not spelling-ly sound. :)  GARDEN  21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the colour green .... Anyhow no need to labour the point ... :) Pedro : Chat  21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable behaviour. What utter bollocks. :) –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to this seeming conflation of America with North America! Canadians are a separate class of polite self-righteous jerk, endlessly obsessed with national identity. However we have now infiltrated ArbCom and placed a mole into the operation of WMF so you should be more polite... :) Franamax (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be correct that perhaps "tone" isn't the best term. I think you and I are just violently agreeing about this (and I totally agree with you about "moral supports" really only coming into play on SNOW/NOTNOW-able RfAs), but I'm starving, I'm gonna go eat now... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go again, Pedro, actually keeping the discussion relevant to what the original topic was, whereas I just breeze right past it like it wasn't even there. :D
 * Dinner, supper or tea? :) Apologies for both trying to keep the conversation on thread and simultaneously derailing it! Pedro : Chat  22:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I can somehow find it in my heart to forgive you. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

← On the subject of tone, it's perhaps a good thing that we can't hear each other's voices. A Canadian (female) friend of mine used to say that to her ear all English males sounded gay. I always preferred to think of it as elegantly dangerous. I'm in general fascinated by how others perceive our accents though, particularly when we're speaking a foreign language, like when a Liverpudlian tries to communicate with someone from the US deep south. A French friend once told me that to his ear an English person speaking French sounded like "the twittering of a bird". Naturally I had to give him a good kicking, and he never said it again, but food for thought nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I hear many more Americans who are imitating Canadians say "eh" than real canadians. Eh? X  clamation point  05:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You do know that the original spelling of the country directly north of the US used to be CND... it was just mis-transcribed when somebody asked their prime minister to spell it... "C-eh-n-eh-d-eh" --- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in the south of the US, and yes, the rednecks around here are nigh-on unintelligible at times. However, I do wish that people could hear me actually speak some of the things I say around here; as it is, I tend to temper the stuff that I flat-out know won't carry over well as text, though people would know that I was joking or being sarcastic if they heard me. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...giving you the benefit of the doubt that the above comment isn't sarcasm in itself. :)  Syn  ergy 22:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mwuhaha. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, are you telling me that not everybody who speaks with an English accent is gay?--- I'm Spartacus!  The artist formerly known as Balloonman 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, does this really matter? In my experience, limited though it is, moral supports are only found in RfA's that are going to fail, as a way of not making it an epic fail and encouraging the candidate for next time. Are there RfA's that fall in bureaucrat's discretion that have a significant number of moral supports?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Crat proposal
I've proposed a new method for handling inactive crats at Bureaucrat_removal.  MBisanz  talk 10:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, I recommend rubber gloves, but sometimes a sturdy pair of tongs is safest. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions about those awful, awful admins
In Cryptic's RFA, Deacon in the oppose section points to Q11 as not being appropriate. He's referring to the fact that User:Pocopocopocopoco was recently topic-banned from certain heated discussions at WP:AE, enforcing an earlier ArbCom decision. I had exactly the same reaction, and I wondered how to deal with it; I'm not sure if I did the right thing. I left Poco a message on his talk page last night saying that anyone can ask a question or two, but if he started asking a question in 3 or 4 separate RFAs that didn't seem to concern RFA, then that would seem like a kind of forum-shopping to me.

Going forward, it seems to me that it's going to be really hard to draw the line between people who are asking questions or voting for the "right reasons" versus ones who aren't. Maybe we could add a sentence to the RFA guide letting candidates and voters know that they should expect to see questions from time to time along the lines of "Do you think that admins should be allowed to do [awful, awful thing]?". No one should assume that that means that admins do the awful thing, or that anyone is legitimately worried that the candidate will do it, either. If the questions get too weird or too specific to one person's problems, we can deal with it when that happens. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "we can deal with it when that happens" is good enough; no extra line in the guide is necessary. Useight (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Deacon should regard the answer as plainly wrong - if I were the candidate, I would also have answered the question with that considered as the sole factor on whether to block/threaten to block or not. I wouldn't want to see candidates to be so paranoid to the extent that when such a question pops up, the first thing he/she does is to run a background search at the dramaboard. And then get sounded off as lacking good faith. It's a no-win situation here. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If a person relatively new to RFA reads, "Do you think admins should be allowed to ...", and no one objects to the question, aren't they likely to assume that that's an actual issue that comes up, rather than assuming that it's someone trying to get ammunition for an argument in another forum? We've seen it happen many times, and it might be useful to start sharing what we know about what makes RFA appear to be more intimidating than it needs to be. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I did notice one thing from past elections and RfAs - people like to ask questions that are based on actual incidents (if you remember the AGF challenge). If the candidate is there and is able to catch it immediately and answer in that context, great for him/her, but we must not assume that he/she is able to stick around every corner of Wikipedia to know every single event that goes on. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II
People have been tossing around some ideas for a CSD bot; the proposer's latest idea is a noticeboard that would keep track of some information about CSDs ... at a minimum, it would post a notice of CSDs where the article creator removed the CSD tag. I've suggested that if it lists all the active CSDs, that might make it easier to keep track of how CSDs are being handled, which is a subject that comes up again and again at RFA. AFAIK, only "contrib" and history pages have RSS feeds for real-time notification of changes, so the "contrib" page for a bot like this one or the history of the noticeboard would probably be the best way to get notified of CSDs in real time, filtered if you like on just those editors, tags, taggers or admins you want to keep track of. So for instance, if someone is worried they might have a hard time at RFA because of their A7 tagging, this would be a way they could make it easy for someone they respect to keep an eye on just their A7s ... since that's not much of an imposition, maybe people would ask for help more often. If you do or don't like the idea of a CSD noticeboard, add your voice to the discussion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Active Admins & Crats
The top of both this page and the project page have "Current admin count: 1,625 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 30 (list all)". I think that gives us a misleading background to the RFA & RFB processes as these figures includes long dormant accounts. If we have the appropriate bots does anyone object to replacing them with "Currently active admins: ??? (list all) Current active bureaucrats: ?? (list all)". I seem to remember there being a bot somewhere that counts admins who have performed more than a certain number of edits in the last 90 days, though ideally I'd suggest admins and crats who've performed an admin or crat action in the last 90 days.  Were Spiel  Chequers  19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove the rights of inactive admins

 * It would be better just to remove the rights from users that aren't interested in using them.  Majorly  talk  20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What purpose would that serve? Not using an ability is not the same as misusing and ability so removing it would not be helpful.


 * I do think it would be a fine idea to mark the admins who have recently used their tools as "active" admins. 90 days sounds about right, not measuring edits though but the use of the relevant tools thenselves. Chillum  20:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, it would make the number at the top accurate. Tell me, what purpose does keeping dormant rights have?  Majorly  talk  20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Once an admin, always an admin. That's the rule here, except in the most exceptional of circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone will probably quite soon wheel out that tired old WP:PERENNIAL in yet another attempt to stifle discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. "What's the harm?" "They aren't abusing!" "They might come back!" "It'll cause a lot of work for the stewards!" Blah blah blah. They miss the point that they are simply decoration if not used. Get them if you need them. Lose them if you don't. Give them up if you're no longer trusted by the community. Meta-wiki philosophy, that should be brought here. Alas, it will never happen.  Majorly  talk  20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, they should be desysoped if inactive for blank days, because if they're accounts are hacked then well you know.-- Giants27  T  C  20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you know? No, I guess I don't. Why would an inactive account be more hackable than an active one? It's people who actively log in who create opportunities to have their passwords sniffed, cookies re-used, etc. rspεεr (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that inactive admins should be desysoped has been repeatedly rejected, it is also not the topic of this thread. Dormant does not mean gone forever, people come back. Chillum  20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because it has been rejected by the people who hang out on this page, doesn't mean it will be again. I really don't think someone who left in 2003 will be coming back. And if they did, I would not trust them in the slightest to be deleting pages - when they were active, the wiki was extremely different, and many of today's policies non-existent. I think I might propose it again.  Majorly  talk  20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what you'd find is that there are quite a few people who oppose the concept, but are content to ignore you each time you bring it up because it doesn't go anywhere. If it seems like it might go somewhere, those people will probably arrive to set you straight. I know desysopping people is your hobby on meta, but this isn't meta (and meta really isn't all that meta anymore... maybe it should be renamed bureaucracy.wikimedia.org or buro.wiki for short?). Speaking of meta policies, don't they require meta admins to be administrators on another content project? <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, it is not my "hobby" at all. Please keep your comments non-personal. Obviously, considering you have thousands of edits on Meta-wiki, you know much more than I do about it, so I'll take your word for it.
 * They'll "set me straight"? By giving me the tired old argument of WP:NOHARM? And your final point, yes, they do.  Majorly  talk  21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might be surprised at how many are in favour of the idea Avruch I'd certainly be lining up with Majorly, and you won't see me say that very often. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You could be right, Malleus, but I hope not. I think its a fantastically bad idea for a number of reasons. Proponents think it will be easy and uncontroversial; but it will be anything but. The smokescreen of "But would you want 2003 admins deleting pages in 2009" ignores the fact that after the first few weeks or whatever, any desysopping process would focus on people just past the minimum threshold of activity. A year, six months? So when they come back, all the fringe promoters and wingnuts they pissed off should get Round 2 at RfA, arguing over whether they should be resysopped? If you dislike RfA, and I know you do, you should cringe at the thought. I realize people have a visceral appreciation for admin bloodsport, and some folks just want as many admins as possible desysopped on the belief that it will only help... But confirmations and desysoppings will be difficult and full of drama, far more than its worth to solve some problem no one has really identified. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is clear. A disconnect between those doing the work and those who believe that they are in charge of those doing the work, rather than believing that they are supporting those doing the work. If I ruled the World I'd desysop every admin right now, and demand that they went through a reconfirmation RfA. A 2009 RfA, not the nod and a wink stuff that used to go on. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also wondering what problem this is trying to solve? If there isn't a clear issue this is trying to resolve then it's just another unneeded layer of bureaucracy. And it's almost certainly going to add more drama with no corresponding benefit. RxS (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rx. This is a solution in search of a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let them eat cake springs to mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Counting actives rather than all

 * If you want to propose this change Majorly please do, it is a productive thing to do. I will contribute to the discussion. I don't think there is much chance of the idea being accepted but it is always good to know for sure. This thread is about an idea that has a good chance of being implemented which I support. Marking admins as inactive/active by a bot is a great idea. Chillum  21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've split this into two threads because there are two very different proposals here - not least because I and expect many others would be loathe to desysop someone who took a four month wiki break. But you wouldn't really describe them as active would you?  Were Spiel  Chequers  22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (moved here per topic heading) Is there not a bot somewhere that calculates the number of active hierarchs? That could be parenthesised after the total figure. Skomorokh  20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there is a list of active admins somewhere. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the revision history of List of administrators. Rick Bot updates it daily, so you can see how it varies. Useight (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That lists 945. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I heard somewhere that there are 600 active admins, but "active" is subject to interpretation. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  01:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Active", at least for that number, means "has made more than 30 edits in the last 3 months". I wouldn't call that 'active', I would call it 'not inactive'. Certainly the number of admins actively involved in day to day editing is probably a good bit lower. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ... although not yet low enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 30 edits in three months seems more or less inactive to me. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in full. I've had periods of inactivity, but I've never had less than thirty edits in one month, let alone three months. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything Malleus, Wikipedia needs more admins not less. It is not a big deal you know? Chillum  05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's not a big deal then why do so many clearly incompetent admins fight tooth and nail to avoid being desysoped? If it's not a big deal, then why is it such a big deal to lose the admin bit? Wake up, smell the coffee. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to answer the other question. Why does wikipedia need more admins exactly? Surely there are far too many as it is? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee Malleus, you haven't said why we should not have admins. Frankly the vandals and trolls would just take over if we didn't. No there are not enough admins, we need more. So that we can manage the higher population of users. Now do you have any reasons(you know the things that convince people) why we should not have as many admins?


 * Who are all these admins that are so incompetent that they are fighting to avoid desysoping? I have seen less than a handful of such admins over the course of years. Chillum  14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The archive from the last time the algorithm for how to count admins as active came up is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 155. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original proposal
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 155 was an interesting thread that shows it might be difficult to get consensus for a different way to count how many active admins we have. In particular someone who retires after an afternoons editing would currently be counted as active for the following 90 days, an admin who only performs blocks and deletes would count as inactive if they didn't do 30 edits in 90 days and crucially this is not a binary divide as we have a few very active admins who spend time on wikipedia every day, and many others who might spend an hour a fortnight or less here. I suspect if the bot could also count admin actions such as blocks we could get consensus that an inactive admin is one who hasn't performed an admin action in the last 30 days, and a dormant account is one that hasn't done anything in 60 days. Giving us three groups of admins, Active admins, active editors with admin rights that they rarely if ever use, and currently inactive admins. But back to my original proposal to replace the current figure of number of editors with crat and admin rights with the number of "actives" however actives is defined, I haven't yet spotted any opposition to this even amongst those who disagree as to whether we have too few or too many admins. So unless anyone objects I'll make that change on Thursday.  Were Spiel  Chequers  09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, maybe list both actives and all admins (like "945/"). On the same thought, maybe Rick Block could change his bot to update that figure once a week (let's put it on a subpage to make it easier). And I agree with the idea to change the criterion of activity and change WP:LOA to reflect that (if we can have consensus on the variables and Rick makes the changes needed that is).  So Why  15:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to list active and all as per SoWhy.  Were Spiel  Chequers  15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We lost another admin today and I'm just sick about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier today, I spent a good while reading an ANI thread about an edit war, and reviewing the history of the page in question. After some thought, I decided neither to block the editors involved nor to protect the page. Since then I was happy to see productive editing taking place and an apparent end to the edit war. I've still got eighty-nine days of the same activity to go until I make the inactive list, but it's a start.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I use the admin tools to view deleted pages to check that they were deleted properly & to e-mail copies of deleted articles to editors on request. I also close AfDs without deletion & refuse expired prods where further discussion seems in order. None of this shows up in the logs, but is all legitimate admin activity. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have issued at least half a dozen warnings to vandals today. None of this shows up in admin logs either. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I said that "it might be difficult to get consensus for a different way to count how many active admins there are", though I think all but SheffieldSteel's comment could be covered by broadening the bot to count blocks, deletes and other admin operations as well. SheffieldSteel has a good example in that sometimes no action is needed. However the chance that an active admin could be regularly doing that to the point of not doing 30 edits in 90 days does seem a tad low to me. Sheffield do you actually object to the change to the suggested change to the stats on this page?  Were Spiel  Chequers  22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't notice this earlier. I have no problem with changing the criteria used by the bot. I am rather concerned that an automatic evaluation of an admin's activity might be used as a source of lies damned lies statistics that might in turn be used as the rationale behind any number of proposals, e.g. to alter RfA criteria or to desysop "inactive" admins. You can use statistics for a lot, and not all of that is necessarily justified.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

More RfA stats?
About 11 months ago, SoxBot II was approved to update File:Graph of RfA and RfB.svg weekly. It's almost complete, and it brings up some interesting points. Is this a sign of decreasing RfAs, or am I just paranoid? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There was only 1 point where it reached 0 RfAs, which was January 2009.
 * 2) The top number of RfAs was about 10 months ago.
 * 3) An RfB hasn't lasted a full week since September 2008, and there were only 2 since then.
 * 4) From a 1 month span from mid October to mid November, the number of RfAs hovered around 1-2 at the time.
 * 5) The peaks are higher and more... jagged last May/June.


 * Well, with the amount of new user registrations declining, it's only natural that there are less users emerging as potential admin candidates. And RFB is a h***hole anyway so I am not surprised that there are that few admins willing to risk it.  So Why  16:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "This graph is based on Image:George W Bush approval ratings.svg". An ominous portent indeed... Skomorokh  18:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can someone make this graph go way back, perhaps to some far back point on User:Bibliomaniac15/A history of RFA, by any chance? I imagine Majorly or NoSeptember's data would make this fairly easy. Comparing with new user registrations or article creations might be useful then. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably could. I don't know where the data is. :P <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  22:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You really ought to go back and reconstruct more of the historical record, your record as is hardly provides much context. For example, this period in May 2007 had 25 RFAs, and that's not the all time high. Yes things have declined, and a longer memory makes that even clearer. Dragons flight (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, there hasn't been a full RfB since September? Depressing. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is only one stat I need...
And it's here. Less than 50 per cent of admins are now "active". I saw Ottava recently saying on an RFA that we have about 1,000 admins to many. Well - that would leave us somewhat negative on the admin front. And before we go down any line, let's just remember that some poor sod has to delete the WP:CSD's within a reasonable timescale if nothing else. Admins are leaving wholesale. The evidence is in the history of that diff. Pedro : Chat  22:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look through the history, and from March 1, 2008 to February 17, 2009; the number of active admins was hovering between 950-1020. That number suddenly falling to 724 is a dramatic drop after a period of relative stability, and bear in mind in March of last year we had less (though not much less) admins than we have now. Acalamari 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We need more editors with the technical ability that is confered by +sysop. We need more editors prepared to delete crap to keep this work credible. We need more people to block IP's and SPA's on a rampage. If you doubt this, get up early, or stay up late and simply check WP:AIV and CSD at 07:30 UTC. Unless, of course, we (by "we" I mean everyone who has a care about the larger goal) feel the work is doomed, that we no longer care about our FA's and GA's, the stubs we've written or the DYK's we've seen progressed. Pedro : Chat


 * This is a bit confusing... did the bot miscalculate, or did over two hundred admins just log on and edit just to prove you wrong? :D  GARDEN  22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd hope the bot is inaccurate ... HOPE being the key word. Assuming a bot error - we are still at around 58% in terms of active admins. Pedro : Chat  22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the latest (and higher) number is the correct one, then that is a piece of good news. Acalamari 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot got something wrong after February 17; It has been fixed meanwhile with the number of active sysops in 2009 being ca. 950.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are perhaps about 1,000 admins too many throwing their weight around threatening and issuing civility blocks and other such nonsense, but perhaps 1,000 too few actually doing the drudge work of maintaining the encyclopedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Am in the negative 50 doing the drudge or the negative 50 throwing my weight around? :) Pedro : Chat  22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're definitely in there with the drudgers. Who in their right mind would choose, of their own free will, to spend time looking at CSDs others had tagged instead of working on an interesting article? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide the diff where I claimed I was in my right mind... :) Pedro : Chat  22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that I believed you to be of sound mind. ;-) But I think there is a serious point which underlies these admin activity figures; I have the distinct impression that many editors view adminship as some kind of a promotion, not as an obligation to clean out the guttering, to abuse that tired old janitor analogy. Once promoted, job done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Malleus, and some more stats for you all. From this source we see 6,565,762 admin actions. Even including MZMcBride's effort to hit 1,000,000 deletions, and the fact that this jumble of data gives us 1840 admin accounts ever, that equals a mean admin action rate of 3,568 actions per admin. User:Brian0918 has achieved exactly that figure, and 360 admins are in excess of this. Removing all admin accounts with less than 10 admin actions (total 184 accounts) gives us some interesting data;
 * 201 accounts have made <100 admin actions
 * total 524 accounts have made <400 admin actions
 * Yes we grant the tools on the basis that even the smallest amount of help offered is useful. But one woul;d hope that candidates who offer to clear the backlogs in their Q1's at RFA would follow through. Pedro : Chat  23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In 2004, RfX was less of a big deal. Adminship was handed out more liberally than it is now. Back then, it was anyone who was good. Activity didn't matter, or whether or not they needed it. Cprompt hasn't used his crat tools at all, and he became a crat around then. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro, you've obviously given this some thought - your opinion on why this is happening would be valuable. It's one thing we can't blame on the RFA process as you're talking about people after they have been given the bit. Dean B (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the 201 admins with fewer than 100 admin actions, as are most of the 9 admins from the Feb 2009 intake, and we are all among the 524 with fewer than 400 actions. But I've been an admin for less than a month for part of which I've been on holiday, and if you think thats a disappointing start Mfield has only been an admin since the 27th. So I suggest that you ignore newbie admins from these sort of stats. Also you may find some admins who've moved the bit between their accounts which I suspect could lead to some anomalies where an admin has had two accounts over time, one of which has a low count. Bishonen/Bishzilla springs to mind.  Were  Spiel  Chequers  11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh - no need to "hold you hands up!". I don't think there's any value in some kind of hunt for editors who promised to clear backlogs at RFA and then don't. This is a volunteer effort after all :) I think my message is this; we see a lot of "we have too many admins" or comparing admin numbers against non-admin editor numbers and so on - but these claims often use the total admin count of over 1,600. In reality we have under 1000 active admins - and that definition of active does not cover admin actions - it covers editing. A more useful baseline is the number of active admins who are actively using the tools. Of course this then needs to be compared properly as well. By way of example;
 * The ratio of the number of admins to the number of articles seems a pointless bit of data
 * The ratio of the number of active admins using the tools actively as against the number of clear cut speedy deletions created in a given time frame would seem useful data
 * I think it's going to be tough to agree any stand out metrics, but I really do think just baldly stating we have 1,600 + admins is covering up the reality of how many people are performing the administrative workload. Off the top of my head I'd reckon there are around 650 active admins on en.wikipedia. Which certainly doesn't seem too many - particularly when I looked at the state of CSD this morning. Pedro : Chat  11:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's going to be tough working out a metric. For instance, I believe I participate more heavily in CSD than my deletion count of ~500 would indicate - if only because I decline a lot of speedies.  Admin work definitely, but not easily quantifiable by looking at raw admin count numbers.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Very good point - very often an admin action can be not doing something as well. This also leads me to a further thought - non admins who wish to assist in the Wikipedia namespace can help greatly by clerking at all the main boards - AIV, CSD, RFPP, AFD - even PERM. Pedro : Chat  08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ah the good old csd... the place you avoid unless you're completely intoxicated. &mdash;Dark talk 08:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, actually. I consider myself to have a (reasonable) grasp of CSD; I'll spend some time poking about and removing any tags that are clearly incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's acceptable. But honestly, I think I remember declining some of your taggings in the last days but on the other hand, you are doing quite a good job on it. Others create much more work. Pedro is correct, some non-admins who clean up after over-eager speedy taggers will help admins as well.  So  Why  22:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the pay like? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You get paid exactly the same(!!!) as us admins. How does that sound?  So  Why  22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How will discussing this here improve things?-- Patton t / c 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Several good points have been raised in this discussion, actually. It's clear that the number of active administrators is&mdash;in general&mdash;dropping. Whether this is a Bad ThingTM or a Good ThingTM is up in the air. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  03:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)