Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 37

Tony1's Rfa
Allow me to again express my UTTER DISGUST at the Trial by ordeal the Rfa process seems to be degenerating into. This is how we lose so many excellent, talented and thoughtful contributors. Are none of us entitled to express our strong opinions without running the risk of incurring a personal, political pile on?! Do we not have the right to defend ourselves when we feel we are under unfair attack?! Can we not even be bothered to FORGIVE some percieved slight?! Or to extend to our colleagues the benefit of the doubt rather than to doubt their benefits?! If one of my dear friends were to nominate me today, I would DECLINE rather than face running such a disgraceful gauntlet as that which Tony1 was subjected! A Kangaroo court has more decorum!!! I wonder how many of YOU would fare facing such a barrage of negativity. Would you be able to sit quietly and smile, while your honor, your integrity, your personal charachter are smeared in the mud? I think those who would DO NOT deserve to be admins. Those are the very ones who merely want some small crumb of status/reward/power/influence. Who will use their position as a personal TOY rather than a TOOL to make our encyclopedia and community better. Something needs to be done about the ordeal process, otherwise Wikipedia will continue to hemmorage knowledge and talent from these self-inflicted wounds. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I've read some of the comments in the RfA, and while most seem rather civil, there are some that look like outright accusations to Tony1. If I were in his place I would perhaps got a little angry too. I personally don't know Tony1 but judging by the comments in the RfA, he doesn't seem ready for adminship just now, but if he reapplies in a few weeks or months I might support him. &mdash; J I P | Talk 17:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * RDH, outside of the decorum issues on RfA, you don't appear to be raising any particular faults that the RfA process has nor suggesting any ways in which to improve it. I grant that you have some very legitimate feelings regarding the RfA process, but failing any detailing of just what is wrong, there isn't anything for us to comment on. As for decorum, certainly the behavior of certain users should be spoken of on their respective talk pages. Their behavior on RfA is a reflection of their behavior; not of RfA. There are a large number of people who acquit themselves appropriately on RfA. I don't think that extending the behavior of a few against the many is what you intended, but based on the above is sounds to me like that. --Durin 18:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It only takes a few spiteful, rude, inconsiderate and outright trolling individuals to contaminate the entire process. These few can create an atmosphere of ill-will and distrust which grows and carries over to other nominations. I think losing even even one good editor/contributor to this flawed process is one too many.


 * But you ask, and rightfully so, do I have any suggestions to make the process, if not better, then at least less flawed? What sort of Wikipedian would I be if I did'nt:> First off, we could have Rfa "Ushers" or "Bouncers", who could step in when an Rfa begins to get out of hand, before the flames and pile-ons have a chance to cause serious harm. If someone can't behave in accordance with the rules of Civility, No personal attacks, Staying cool, Assumption of good faith and perhaps most importantly Don't be a dick, then these officials would be able to remove them from the Rfa in question and negate their vote. Offenders would recieve, at most, 2 warnings and may also have their offending comments stricken out. Any registered user in good standing may volunteer to be an "Usher" or "Bouncer", but if they are not yet an admin, they will need an admin to be "Enforcer" for their decisions. Durin, you may be ideal for this role.


 * Second, a while ago someone mentioned that we need a "Wiki Middle Class" between registered users and admins. I think this is an exxxcellent suggestion. Towards this end, I have proposed HERE to create a corps of Article Custodians, or admins-lite if you will:>. Basically they would have limited admin powers over a single article (48 hour lock maximum and rollback button). They would be voted in, as are admins, but the threshold for concensus would be lower (60%) and they may be removed by bureaucrats if asked to by at least three different admins. Article Custodianship would reward good contributors who have put a lot of time and work into an article with the power and responsibility to care for it. It would also allow them to show they have The Right Stuff to be admins, make the transition from to admin much easier and help take the sting off a failed Rfa. It could also help the admins deal with the bane of the Wikiverse-Vandalism.


 * If anyone can come up with better suggestions, by all means please do and I'll endorse, peddle, push and pimp them wholeheartedly:> But something must be done, not only to keep our talent but to maintain the atmosphere of civility and collaboration which makes the Wiki MORE than simply an encyclopedia. Tony left a message on my talk page today, thanking me for my comments and support and asking me to contact him in mail. This makes the second friend, User:Rl is the other, I have lost due to the toxic effects from Rfa. The system may not yet be broke, but it is clearly starting to crack under the strain of Wikipedia's growth. The time to fix it is now. Thanks for your time and consideration--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm against instruction creep, and feel these suggestions are in that vein. I would like to see what impact WP:GRFA has when it's 'officially' released first before applying any other salve on the RfA process. With respect to the suggestions; I think the first carries more merit than the second. But in general, I don't like the idea of adding in additional special classes of wiki-citizens to pursue particular problems. --Durin 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So you are against "instruction creep", then you post a link to yet another page full of instructions. But they are good instructions...I wish I'd known about them before I became involved in Rfa. Unfortunately, I jumped right in and learned nearly everything in there the hard way. I'm afraid most others will learn the same way too, afterall the Wikiverse is so vast and there are so many WP:Instruction pages to keep track of already. It can be confusing even for those who know their way around. I'm none too optimistic WP:GiRaFA will have any significant impact at all. Anymore than a warning sign at a Mosh pit.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Requests for rollback privileges. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a step in the right direction. But only a step. And it does'nt address the problem of bruising if not abusive Rfas. My friend SoLando has come up with an interesting idea. If y'all promise to be nice, I might convince him to share it here:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The very community interaction that makes Wikipedia rewarding can become destructive when critical comment is made in RfA or FaC discussions, particularly when candidates or authors take understandable pride in their work. It's hard not to take attacks personally, though better forewarning and support might help. In this instance an interesting article marred by grammatical errors and convoluted writing has been isolated from critical improvement, and more importantly a contributor with uncommon skills has been alienated. Administrators have to be responsible, but testing their restraint by public abuse is out of order. The Admin-lite idea would still involve the same process, and limited powers to protect one article would have no relevance in this case, where an editor was making contributions over many articles. However, there could be merit in a kind of official barnstar or recognition of responsibility as a standard precursor to adminship, possibly giving access to rollback buttons, and I'm for that...dave souza 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no "public abuse" at Tony1's RfA or, indeed, the RfAs of most users. What I see is a legitimate comment about a tantrum Tony threw at an old FAC, followed by Tony dragging in his objections from that FAC to a forum where they have no relevance.  Then, when other users opposed (notably Cyberjunkie and Alkivar), he blew up at them.  Frankly, if you respond to legitimate comments by throwing a very public tantrum on your own RfA, I don't feel you have any right to be upset when your RfA doesn't pass, and further, you are not admin material.  Good editors are not necessarily good admins, and vice versa.  Please, let's not let our personal feelings get in the way of the basic facts.  Tony was not mistreated, and it's pure fantasy to say he was. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I figure this section would be an appropiate location to place my proposal, since R.D.H.'s proposals inspired mine. Now hopefully this won't be considered an unnecessary tier to the RFA structure. But as the principal reason for some RFA descending into a frenzied debacle is that of unresolved issues, why not have an optional "peer review" similar to that used for articles, which invariably are a precursor to the article becoming an FA Candidate. At the peer review, issues could be raised and resolved with the prospective admin, and perhaps an indication of their chances (or whether they are even ready) could be given, as many seem to be jumping head first into an RFA, then get hurt when it doesn't go as they anticipated/desired. I can imagine this idea may be seen as unnecessary, what with there being RFCs and the like, but as R.D.H. said responding to me on his talk page: "RFCs usually involve edit wars, personal pissing contests and such, what you propose would exclusively deal with admin candidate issues." SoLando (Talk) 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How would this not turn into "personal pissing constests" as well? People's pasts are a big reason why RfAs pass or fail. You could always list youself at RfC and explain you are looking for constructive criticism. Or do as other have done, start a user subpage seeking comments. The new guide should help incredibly though. -- LV (Dark Mark)  19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * >How would this not turn into "personal pissing constests" as well?< There is no guarantee it would'nt. None of the suggestions SoLando or I have made would make the process completely "piss-proof". We realize this, but it is our hope that they will at least help reduce the "piss level" which is slowly creeping over the levees and flooding the Rfa. SoLando's suggestion for RFAC, would allow candidates and nominators to "test the waters" first, so they will know much better what to work on and what to expect from the Rfa. It would make "ambushes" and "pile-ons" much less a problem than they currently are. Plus his proposal has the added virtue of being easy and painless to implement without having to change the (sacred) Wiki software. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The process is fine. The problem here  was Tony had a temper he could not control, he became as a spoilt and petulant child. Insulting all who came near. If no-one had ever said "No, Tony I don't like your edits they are wrong"  When would Tony's temperament have come to light - after you, the  sympathetic crowd had voted him "Admin of FA", and everyone new to the page was too frightened to say a word.


 * I'm sick of being the villain of this piece. Tony was over forceful and arrogant in his edits. Pages I've written are edited every day, and good, so they should be!  There's one coming up on the front page very shortly, and we all know what happens there, especially me because I've had several on the front page before, all thankfully well copy-edited before they arrived there. (and before you all rush off to have a look now).  I couldn't care less what style and grammar gurus do to a page but when they alter the integrity of the page - I do.


 * My grammar and spelling are appalling, I can't write a simple stub without being copy-edited. I admit it, it's Wikipedia's most badly kept secret. However, I will not be harassed into altering the essence and emphasis of a page.  If people can't cope with that, then the encyclopedia may as well give up now.   Tony was very good with his grammar, and his phrasing and vocabulary  was wonderful for children.  If he comes back knowing his limitations good, if he doesn't come back well grammar is taught in schools.  End of story.


 * Keep the process as it is, because a few people behind closed doors would fail to reach the correct decision. Tony was very happy originally to be there, but he was too new. If he was ignorant and unhappy blame those who nominated him, not a tried, trusted and proven system. 81.131.95.249 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Giano (I keep being logged out - have I been banned)


 * Completely independent of SoLando or RDH, I stumbled across the idea of peer review as well. It's entirely notional at this point, but I did create a subpage of mine for it: User:Durin/Peer review.
 * As for WP:GRFA being instruction creep; it's nothing of the sort. There are no instructions anyone is compelled to follow. It is not policy. It isn't even a guideline. It's a set of recommendations and are not part of the instructions found at Requests for adminship/nominate. There are no additional hurdles here to jump; it is just some helpful advice.
 * I do think people should take some responsibility for keeping the RfA process as civil as possible. To that end, I've begun advising people of when I feel they have overstepped the boundaries a bit . That said, I have no intention of becoming the Sheriff of RfA. I think we should all be encouraging each other to contribute to RfA productively. --Durin 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the instructions (or recommendations if you prefer) won't help. They will. But they won't be enough. However, they, along with my proposal for Rfa "ushers" and SoLando's "Peer Review" idea TOGETHER might be enough. They are at least worth a try. What do we have to lose except more talent? The system may have worked fine when Wiki was relatively small, but it has grown, and is growing, tremendously now. It is starting to bend and in time it will break. The time to start fixing it is before it reaches this breaking point.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But who regarding Tony overstepped the mark? Tony was originally asked to provide the "diffs" for a problem he (no one else) first mentioned. He could not oblige. The man failed, it was unpleasant, so are all interviews, the process is fine. Giano | talk 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "I'm sick of being the villain of this piece." No one here even mentioned you by name, Giano, but since the shoe fits... You knew DAMN well Tony had buttons, where they were and how to push them...which you did... Afterall, it is his fault for having buttons, not yours for pushing them right? Seems it is not enough for you to have shot down his Rfa and driven Tony away, you continue to insult and belittle him and his charachter here to defend your actions.  The HONOURABLE thing to do would be to apologize, publically and sincerely. But instead you take an almost perverse pride and reprehensable callousness IE-"If he comes back knowing his limitations good, if he doesn't come back well grammar is taught in schools. End of story." You say the system is fine... .--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are the bolded quotes mine or yours, I think yours, or are mine the unbolded, perhaps when you have calmed down you would like to explain, because I am rather confused. You remind me of the famous quote about throwing pebble into a pond and watching the rings, always a fascinating observation, you should try it sometime.   However I'm unsure of your point here, and less sure of it's relevance to the subject under discussion, when you feel calmer I look forward to your explanation.  Because poor Tony rather lost the plot, there is no need for us all to follow suit. Please bear that in mind. Giano | talk 21:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's rather simple, the ones with quotes around them "Like this" are yours...the ones without are mine:> Oh course "poor Tony" was'nt pushed...he jumped. You were just an innocent lil lamb throughout the entire ordeal were'nt you. How dare I imply you had any hand in setting up his self-destruction (A very masterful job BTW, you should be congradulated). But I'm glad I can provide you with some amusement, piccolo Machiavelli. I also enjoyed the way you have basically told me to "Go jump in a pond" and your veiled warning not to follow in Tony's footsteps. You shall be fun to play with:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * .....and your point was? Giano | talk 21:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am merely trying to grasp, the point you are  trying to make  in regard to this debate. Tony was asked to provide the diffs for a dispute which he first mentioned, nothing to do with me  (I don't do medical pages). This is standard procedure on an RFA debate.  Tony was not able to do so.  He then lost his temper and insulted many of those who had hitherto voted for him.  As a consequence (in my view quite rightly)  he lost many more votes as some people perceived this behaviour to be unbecoming an administrator. Very sad - but a fact. I cannot change it - you cannot change it. Now which part of this simple explanation are you having a problem coming to terms with.  Please compose yourself, stop insulting me, and make a valid contribution to the discussion here. Giano | talk 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I cannot change it...and insulting you, cathartic as it may be, cannot change it either. But I can at least try to make it less likely in the future. Which is why I've proposed some Rfa reforms.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's what you do: On all RfA's, require that each "No" vote have a tactful explanation of a unique objection to the votee. This way a gang of 10 can't come in and all harshly comdemn about the same old crap.
 * Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * which would work great if it wasn't for the small problem of candidates who have one massive flaw.Geni 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * R.D.H., I have (conservatively) removed the more egregious of your flames against Giano above, per the Remove personal attacks guideline. Please stop posting abuse. Get your "fun" and your "catharsis" somewhere else. Bishonen | talk 02:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely the issue here is not whether or not a particular individual should have been appointed Admin, but whether the selection process can be made less damaging to individuals and to Wikipedia. WP:GRFA gives an invaluable guide to the pitfalls, and should be considered fully by all nominators and candidates before accepting nomination: could a strong recommendation to read it be added to the template for the candidate's talk page, and to WP:RFA? Damage and ill feeling could be reduced by quickly removing a nomination that is going sour from WP:RFA, and in this case at least it might have helped if an offer to do this had been put to the candidate at an early stage of problems developing: this suggestion could be expanded in GRFA. .....dave souza 09:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:GRFA is under development. It was initially created just nine days ago, and has undergone considerable expansion and improvement by more than a dozen contributors since initial creation. I feel the guide is much needed, but I did not want to be premature in including it as a reference in RfA. I posted a notice at the Bureaucrat's noticeboard five days ago to involve that group of editors as well. Substantial changes have been petering out, and there's been no changes at all now for two days. Based on that, I think we're near a "stable" version of the guide. I expect it will continue to change/improve over time. I wanted to wait until Monday or Tuesday before making the revisions to include it within the RfA process.--Durin 12:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good stuff: nice to see a positive way forward...dave souza 13:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony1's Rfa (continued)
I have removed the discussion here and archived it, as R.D.H. has indicated he no longer wishes to continue the discussion. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a wise move. Especially since all the truly important points in it are also discussed below with more depth and less personal animosity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Talrias I really like your Mentor System proposal. It could provide a fine alternative track to Rfa. But I don't think it should replace Rfa entirely. It can offer an important piece to the puzzle when used in conjunction with some of the other ideas we've come up with. No single solution is best, but taking the best elements of each and fitting them together into a coherent whole, much the way we do articles, is the best approach. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)