Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:22, 9 April 2011

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 01:13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Purge this page

Finding candidates

If anyone has the time to check out some potential candidates, may I suggest going through Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)/2010? Obviously some of those we rejected last year will no longer be around, and others may not have finished working through the issues that caused their RFAs to fail. But there will be candidates who were a few months away from being ready when they ran last year but who could now pass quite easily. ϢereSpielChequers 08:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would say be bold and nominate those who you feel would be ready at this time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I think it is a good idea to discuss and get their agreement before one nominates a candidate, but the reason I posted this was that I was hoping to enlist some more nominators. It would be nice if we could get a few RFAs through by other nominators before I transclude my next one. ϢereSpielChequers 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, their tacit agreement is needed, but if their last RFA was close (if they ran previously), then they should have no objections to running again.  :) I will admit that I am not a good judge of editing character so I would not make a good nominator. Nor do I feel ready for another RFA at this time, or I might consider myself a candidate.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What you wanna see which way the wind is blowing before throwing your next nominee to the wolves?---Balloonman 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say lots of nominations from one good nominator is better than a dearth of RfAs... i.e. get on with it ;) Worm · (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Shameless plug You can also see who's still editing by snooping at User:Worm That Turned/Unsuccessful RFAs... Worm · (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tables Worm :). — Oli Pyfan! 09:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange, my own RFA isn't on that list, and seemingly isn't linked to from anywhere. I wonder what caused that oversight? AD 13:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's either plausible deniability or possibly the person who closed it wasn't familiar with closing RfAs... I'll sort it out for you. Worm · (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> Is it at all possible to contact those editors who aren't still active? i.e. the ones that were so traumatised that they just left in despair? Pesky (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that?--Atlan (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that spamming all of them could be unhelpful. However if you took a look through a particular candidate's background, saw lots of good stuff, and decided to sent them a personalised message saying "I hope your RfA experience didn't crush your spirit permanently; you could keep on making lots of positive contributions without the mop", that could only be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You would actually mention the crushing of spirits? Wow. There are only a few inactive users where such a dramatic description would apply, and those have already received plenty of such silly "please don't go" messages. Anyway, this thread is trying to bring in new admins, not hand tissues to users that left crying.--Atlan (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the RfA talkpage; it's hard to judge how much tangential hyperbole to employ in any new comment. If I added too much, then you have my sincere apologies, and I'll try to use slightly less hyperbole next time. bobrayner (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's just that people here seem to exaggerate how sensitive our RFA hopefuls are all the time. The point remains that there aren't that many that left after a failed RFA, clearly because of that failed RFA. Writing them notes to urge them back seems pointless to me.--Atlan (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I really don't mind if someone could help speed up my work... Rehman 11:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a shortage of admins then? If you'd like I'll happily throw my hat into the ring for an RFA. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We can never have enough admins really, there is always something for them (i.e. us) to do. But I would advise against running just because you think there is a shortage. Instead, check whether you are ready and run whenever you feel you are ready (and possibly after someone reviewed you if you prefer that). Regards SoWhy 19:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do have a review pending which has been open since January with no response. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And rarely has there been a clearer example of the Devil making work for idle hands. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Give me a couple months and I would be interested in someone maybe co-nomming with KoH, or giving me any additional tips to go with his admin coaching atm :) Regards, MacMed_stalk 20:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would run soon, except for the fact my last two RfAs were shot down and I'm not as active as some users like. ~EDDY ~ 21:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

BAG Recruitment

The Bot Approvals Group is responsible for reviewing and approving bots on Misplaced Pages. However, for an extended period of time we have been staffed at below the optimal number for reviewing bot requests. Therefore, I am asking experienced members of the community with an interest in reviewing bots to consider submitting themselves for membership at Misplaced Pages talk:BAG#Requests for BAG membership. Thanks. MBisanz 02:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I echo this call for applicants, as the number of active BAG members is not sufficient for the current workload. –xeno 15:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll bite, although not sure if I'm quite what you're after ;) EDIT: probably best for me just to keep an eye on BRFA and participate for a bit, to get up to speed :) --Errant 15:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Working at BAG is not that much different than closing AFDs - you need to evaluate the proposed task in light of relevant policies, guidelines, and community norms, while ensuring sufficient consensus exists for the task (or make a determination that the lack of objection is sufficient evidence that the task is uncontroversial enough, and desirable, and therefore approval is at least tacitly supported). –xeno 15:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto xeno, except one difference is the need for (imo anyhow) at least some technical know-how. Although members of BAG have this in varying degrees. - Kingpin (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nearly one year since last RFB

We're nearly a year since the last successful request for bureaucratship (and over a year for the last unsuccessful request of a viable candidate).

While the current crop of bureaucrats is handling the workload without any major delays, there was recently a slight backlog at WP:CHU/S, which indicates to me that we could use another hand or two to help spread the load.

So this is just me, in my personal capacity, encouraging suitably qualified candidates to consider standing for bureaucratship sometime this year =). –xeno 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose some current bureaucrats could also get off their disillusioned asses and start checking that page again. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest Xeno, I'm very surprised you or Matt Bisanz passed RFB. Not that I don't think you're both fine bureaucrats (you both are), but the criteria for passing is a little insane: You have to be an admin who has been crazy enough to stay on Misplaced Pages for more than a year, willing to take on extra work, and also uncontroversial enough to have not pissed off a significant number of people. That really cuts down the pool of willing applicants to all of maybe ten people. NW (Talk) 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So were you surprised because MB and I were controversial and had pissed off a significant number of people? =) . –xeno 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Toss Avi and Joe in that "surprised" category as well, I guess. You all were active, which basically de facto means that you pissed someone off at some point in time, even if you were right all the time. :) NW (Talk) 19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked I passed with the number of people I ticked off at one time or another. We need another RFB sooner or later, but we really need more BAG members, see above, now! MBisanz 17:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank goodness. Juliancolton (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow...it has been nearly a year since the last RfB hasn't it? Regarding finding suitable candidates, a few good ones that I can think of right off the top of my head are (assuming they wanted to run) WereSpielChequers, HJ Mitchell, and also NuclearWarfare above (though in the case of HJ Mitchell, he hasn't quite reached the "one-year threshold", but he's almost there): all three of them are great admins, are active, seem to be willing to help people, and to my knowledge have decent experience at RfA. Acalamari 20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of confidence Acalamari, but I think any RFB of mine would head to a NC result quite quickly.

Why don't you run? It's been over three years since your previous RfB, and I for one would almost certainly vote for you. NW (Talk) 23:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote for you, NW, and for Acalamari (and most likely for WSC for that matter). You won't catch me at RfB before hell freezes over, I'm afraid. RfA is a little too much drama for my taste and I have only the most basic knowledge of bots. That leaves CHU, which would bore me to tears! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

But being boring is a prime requirement for a bureaucrat surely? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that no more bureaucrats were ever "promoted". Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I bet another Wikipedian a fiver that we won't see a successful RfB in 2011. As long as you keep up your excellent marketing for the role, Malleus, my fiver should be safe! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

King of Hearts (talk · contribs) might be a good idea. I regularly see him working at consensus-judging activities, like AFDs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

However, Acalamari, NuclearWarfare, and Juliancolton might be good 'crats too. (By the way, what is the minimum percentage requirement to pass RFB? Something in the realm of 90%?) Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The official number on WP:RFB is above 85%, yet history shows that there to around 90% is used as the discretionary zone, for example Riana was not promoted at 85.8%, whereas Nihonjoe was promoted at 83%. Just like RFA, the percentage count isn't the whole story- otherwise we could remove this job from the 'crats to a well-programed bot. Courcelles 23:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, you'd definitely have my support at RfB. --Dylan620 00:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You should wipe your nose; it's looking a little brown.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your remark doesn't strike me as particularly constructive. –xeno 14:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your fiver is safe HJ Mitchell. Bureaucrat is just about as much a non-job as I've ever seen, yet it has the most ridiculous bar to entry. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NuclearWarfare, HJ Mitchell, and Reaper Eternal for your confidence, but there will be no RfB from me this side of August: the main reason being is that I was inactive with my main account for the last seven months of last year (but made edits with my alternate account during that time; I had a major move and I wasn't on my own internet for that period). While I'm not planning to have long periods of inactivity again, I respect that people may want to see a few months of active editing before any RfBs or anything. The secondary reason for me not running is that, despite the fact I regularly read this page and every RfA that comes up, I have few recent posts here. However, WSC's mentioning below of admin review is good, and I was planning to request one (not due to this thread or to "prepare for RfB", but merely because I want to file one). Again, thanks for your confidence. Acalamari 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the comments at the last serious failed RfBs, a significant proportion of the opposition seems to come from a belief that there are enough 'crats already. If this is no longer the case, perhaps an RfB run now would have more chance of success. I'd also add that if SoWhy could get 20 opposes because he was involved in WP:NEWT, anybody else involved (including WSC mentioned above) would almost certainly fail. That should knock the number of potential candidates down somewhat. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe !voters can agree that even if they opposed WP:NEWT back in 2009, after almost 1.5 years it's time to move on. I know that there are some people who will never let go of anything, no matter how much time has passed, but I also experienced often enough that most !voters are able to let bygones be bygones and judge a candidate by their current track record. I fear WSC (who I, too, would support immediately) will have to deal with the old "we have too many crats already"-non-argument. I have yet to understand how there can be too many unpaid volunteers doing a thankless technical job - a mystery that will probably continue to baffle me in my eighth year of membership here as well. Regards SoWhy 13:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We need crats, and I suspect we need more than we have. The time to find out that we are struggling to assemble enough active crats for a crat chat is not when we actually need one convened. Of all the possible reforms to RFA that people are proposing I don't see anyone suggesting that we replace crat discretion with a fixed percentage threshold for a pass. Nor have I noticed much enthusiasm for unbundling bot approval or CHU from the crats either to all admins or to all editors. Personally I'm not planning to run yet, but I can think of some excellent candidates and I'm sending them all a telepathic nudge. I may even Email a couple of them. However I'm uncomfortable publicly discussing the suitability of candidates who haven't yet agreed to run or at least filed for an admin review. As for my involvement in wp:NEWT, I doubt that many editors would go that far back even in an RFB. NEWT ended in 2009, it was certainly far too controversial for me to run for RFB last year, but I've only had one editor publicly criticise me for it in recent months. ϢereSpielChequers 15:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed but somehow there is still a sizeable amount of editors who believe there are enough crats without ever providing any convincing arguments on why that is the case or what constitutes "enough". I do hope that you are successful in convincing people to run despite those hurdles. Regards SoWhy 15:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I wouldn't say we have too many. When there are more 'crats than bots to approve, editors wanting a rename and RfAs to close, then we might have too many, but all those things are fairly constant. I don't think we have a shortage of 'crats at the minute, though, because we don't need that many active 'crats. It certainly couldn't hurt to have a few more, but I think there's a greater need for more active admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing someone say that 'crat on the English Misplaced Pages was the hardest "position" in the entire global network to achieve. Meta seems to get by with the idea that any reasonably active admin can be a 'crat after six months- and then defines active as a number of logged actions that can be done in a single day here without much effort. This would be too far for this community to ever go (though I tend to think any good admin with a year's tenure should be promoted), but the impression I got 15 months ago, and still get upon rereading, from Juliancolton and SoWhy's RFB's was an feeling that only a very select few should ever be made crats. The two most recent appointees were users who are strong bot operators- I have nothing but respect for both of them, but I don't think fluency in bot operations should be the only way someone ever gets a wrench. Courcelles 16:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've not been very active as a 'crat over the past couple of years, primarily because backlogs have been infrequent. I'm all for new bureaucrats - the more trustworthy 'crats, the better - but I don't see any need to have more, at the moment. I suggest that it's this lack of a perceived need for new appointments, along with the difficulty of gaining sufficient consensus, which has led to the drought in candidates. Warofdreams talk 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reason I made this thread was because we had a slight backlog at CHUS a few days ago. Among others, there was a request made on 2 April that stated "I do not want my real name to appear. i am getting harassed" that didn't get fulfilled until 6 April. This could, of course, be addressed by encouraging some of the lesser-active 'crats to swing by CHU/S more often, but I don't see a particular reason to avoid appointing new bureaucrats that could lighten the load as well. –xeno 20:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Do the crats consider "too many crats currently" a valid reason for opposing a candidate when assessing consensus? 28bytes (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RfB is frankly and without a doubt the most rigorous and obnoxiously difficult volunteer promotion process on any WMF wiki. I'm a global sysop, which means I have admin tools on 500-some-odd of the 700-some-odd wikis, and that was a walk in the park to achieve compared to both RfB and RfA on enwiki. Juliancolton (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't really follow ArbCom that closely, but being a 'crat seems like an excellent retirement plan for good arbs. Arb is one of the most trusted positions we have on Wiki, and so is 'crat. Just tossing it out there. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The two roles have nothing to do with each other. Misplaced Pages isn't a hierarchy of power – any arb who did his job is going to be opinionated, equally respected and loathed, and eager to get involved in controversial disputes, and the image of a bureaucrat is a stiff wikipolitic bounded by every obscure rule we've ever devised. Juliancolton (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages most certainly is a "hierarchy of power"; you can block me but I can't block you. Arbitrators can ban you, but you can't ban an arbitrator ... it's all there, no point in denying it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never even taken the time to contemplate if I would even want to be a crat because the process is so absurd. We don't actually seem to need very many of them, and the process is so intimidating that even experienced admins who hold other advanced permissions don't want to even think about it. Getting adminship and even oversight access is a walk in the park compared to the grilling you have to go through to be a crat. And for what? So you can close RFAs and rename users? No thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on what RfB has become in the last couple of years, just running for RfB ought to disqualify you from cratship. Anyone who thinks that 90% of the voters will love them has issues. (This doesn't apply to the current crats of course ... they either ran a long time ago, or else didn't know what RfB had become.) Help, I'm starting to sound like Malleus ... get me out of here! - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinions

I hope someone could do something about this, and prevent more users going like this. Irrespective of where I end, I hope one day things will be put right way. Rehman 12:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You shot yourself in the foot by giving the (maybe wrong, but we don't know) impression that you simply don't understand the criteria for speedy deletion. That does not mean RFA is broken; it means you've made a mistake and should learn from it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Voters (opposers) at RFA tend to concentrate on your negative points, and a single mistake can easily cost you becoming an admin. I've said it before though, RFA is not broken - the system has worked for years and will probably for years to come. It's the changing attitudes of the people who vote there that are "broken". I expect you've looked at the CSD criteria more times in the past few days than at any point before, and after all the fuss people have made I'm certain you wouldn't go deleting stuff in a hurry, or at least without carefully consulting it (again). However, even though you've probably learned from your mistake, you have to prove it. Then again, trying again in 6 months or whatever won't necessarily get you a pass. The "power-hunger" nonsense will come up again, no doubt. AD 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that basically sunk your Rfa. One of the core activities of an admin is deletion, so naturally your perceived knowledge in that respect will weigh heavily on people's decision to support or oppose. Of all the Rfa's where I think the nominee is getting undue harsh criticism, this is certainly not one of them. Your "give up" story basically says "Rfa is broken because people oppose me". I suggest you sleep over it a few days and maybe then you can give (most of) the opposers a bit more credit.--Atlan (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Any process that repeatedly causes experienced, useful editors to leave or consider leaving in disgust is broken, abysmally so. It might give the right result in terms of who gains admin tools, but the current side effects are unacceptable.

Rehman, I'm sorry you feel so discouraged by this experience. A lot of people are working on improving the process at the moment (see User talk:Kudpung/RfA reform, User:ErrantX/RFA Study, User_talk:Dank/RFA) and I really hope they succeed. If you still feel like devoting any more time to the project, your thoughts on reform would be welcome.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering how many new admins I have had to school in improper CSD usage, I would say the CSD test at RfA is broken right along with the rest of the process. Rehman seems like a competent editor who, for whatever reason, didn't fully read the actual A7 criteria before responding. A better process would allow for a single user to point out this oversight and recommend more through vetting on the subject, such as asking the candidate to disposition 10 historical CSDs, to verify competency in that area. The result would be either a better new admin or an RfA that fails due to a specific technical reason instead of a personal pile-on. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the current process prevented you from doing just that.--Atlan (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The damage was all done in well under 24 hours. If you're counting on me watching RfA like a hawk, you're sorely mistaken. We need a process that works all the time. —UncleDouggie (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. I was trying to say that while you blame a supposedly broken process (I do not necessarily disagree), nothing in the current process bars anyone from asking such follow-up questions.--Atlan (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, this is not an example of the RfA system being broken; this is an example of it working. Some of the reasons cited by those opposing Rehman's RfA may have been frivolous. But look at it this way: Over a year ago, when he submitted your first RfA, he did not understand WP:CSD#A7 and answered a question about it incorrectly. This week, he submitted your third RfA, and once again he apparently did not understand WP:CSD#A7 and answered a question about it incorrectly. Rehman is wholly responsible for his third RfA's failure, so I find it hard to be sympathetic. UncleDouggie, you write that "Rehman seems like a competent editor who, for whatever reason, didn't fully read the actual A7 criteria before responding." Give me a break. This was not his first opportunity to familiarize himself with A7; this was not even the first time he was called out for misunderstanding A7 in a RfA. And on top of it all, RfA is an open-book test. I don't doubt that Rehman is upset, but most of the opposers were entirely reasonable here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that so long as the RfA came up with the correct result, the means to get there don't matter. Well, the means do matter when we're dealing with real people. Why do we care so much about BLPs? While some talk about theoretical lawsuits, the real reason is that we don't want to hurt people. Yet we have no problem hurting RfA candidates if it gets us what we want as quickly as possible. I never said that Rehman should have passed. Perhaps they over analyze the questions thinking that they can't really be simple open book questions, or perhaps they really can't be bothered with the policy. We just don't know, which means we should fallback to assuming good faith in most cases. Why does it take 20 people jumping on someone to simply say that you can't be an admin until you can clearly recite the CSD policy? —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a vote, and therefore more than one voter needs to express an opinion. Simple. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Beautifully put, Malleus. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

UncleDouggie, I certainly agree that the opposers in a RfA should not try to hurt candidates. Are you saying that's what happened here? Because, at least in the cases of those opposing over the incorrect answer to Q4, I didn't see much malicious nastiness, just a repeated, simple assertion that the answer was unacceptably incorrect. If the problem was that opposers "piled on," do you submit that someone should've closed as WP:SNOW before Rehman withdrew? That seems like it would be an equal slight against the candidate.

Malleus, you are of course quite correct. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless he was more specific somewhere else, I think his answer was absolutely correct. I think he's been badly and uncharitably misinterpreted in the most negative possible manner. Let me tell you what I would do, were I to be making a decision about an A7 nomination. If there is a claim of significance or importance, then I have to determine if this is a "credible claim of significance or importance". How would I do that? If I am an expert in the area, I might have the knowledge in my head. But that's unlikely. So one thing I would do is turn to google scholar/news/etc. If the results show that the claim is plausible, I would revert the A7 tagging and explain it to the tagging user. If the result show otherwise, then I would go deeper, searching for phrases and key information in the article, looking for any glimmer of credibility.

A7 is quite appropriately specific in terms of including that word 'credible'. It isn't just any assertion of notability that will work to get you out of A7, it has to be credible, and to figure out if it is credible or not, you have to dig in and do some work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many other administrators there are like you who so fundamentally misunderstand the speedy deletion guidelines? Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Jimbo. The idea of "signifiance" is a deliberately much lower bar than anything else (i.e. notability). Generally speaking if the article simply asserts something that makes the subject credibly significant we decline A7. Yes, you might turn to Google for some clarification in borderline cases (i.e. where the claim verges on the implausible). But the speedy A7 criteria is intended to catch obviously non-relevant articles (i.e. "Fred Blogs, my teacher"), PROD is where a more careful consideration of the material is requested (because it gives the author, a presumed expert, time to provide a level of sourcing). On the other hand the RFA did decline a little rapidly due to the vague answer. And I think Uncle Douggie's idea of trying to get the user the learn the mistake is a good one --Errant 19:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have to agree with Malleus; Jimbo, that's a fundamental misreading of the deletion policy as currently written. The current wordingis "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." (Bold from the original; my italics.) If one is unsure about something, it's inappropriate for speedy deletion—and the process is very intentionally set up that way, to minimize newbie-biting. Since retention of new users is becoming a serious issue—and incorrect deletion of new articles is one of the fastest ways to drive away new users—this is a question users take particularly seriously at RFA. Given that deletion was the only admin area in which this candidate said they wanted to work, it's entirely reasonable to expect them to have a basic knowledge of the deletion process. – iridescent 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a simple solution to both the RfA and desysop problems in one shot: Give all users a CSD test, including current admins. Everyone who passes becomes an admin and any admins who don't pass are desysoped. ;-) —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Without wanting to pile on Jimbo, I have to agree that the A7 threshold for "credible claim" is low. "John Doe was the first person to walk on Mars" is a non-credible claim, and requires no Google search. "John Doe discovered the element plutonium" is on its face a credible claim, and even though Google searching might show it to be a hoax, that's a different speedy deletion criterion. "John Doe was a leader in a group of communist revolutionaries in Africa in the 1930s" is credible and might not be readily discoverable through Google, so it shouldn't be an A7. Perhaps the distinction among the different criteria is driving some confusion here, but it seems clear enough to me and it's reasonable to oppose an RFA candidate if they are way off base on their understanding of it. All that said, I have the impression that Rehman was trying to say he would use Google results to save an A7 nominee that might actually be notable even though the article didn't credibly describe it. Unfortunately, the ability to communicate clearly is also important to the admin role, so I don't know that my attempt at interpretation helps that much. --RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

After looking at Q4 again, I agree that he was focused on the side of saving an article that didn't have a claim of significance or importance. While this isn't technically required, it would be perfectly fine to do so and to add the claim to the article if needed. The conditions to delete the article were then later explained in Q5. Why the hell didn't someone just come out and ask if he would delete an article that had a credible claim of importance that couldn't be verified? He probably would have passed that test better than Jimbo. We comment on unclear answers from candidates, but maybe we should check if we are really asking the questions clearly. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"We comment on unclear answers from candidates, but maybe we should check if we are really asking the questions clearly" - very well said. Agree totally - and that includes these "damned if you do, damned if you don't" pitfall questions that occur from time to time. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole situation is damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you're too quick to delete you're driving away new users. If you're too hesitant you're soft on vandals and spammers. If you're too quick to add page protection you jumped the gun just when consensus was becoming clear. If you're too slow to protect you could have stopped a bad situation from getting worse. Same thing with blocking and other admin actions. Being perceived as wrong all the time about everything is pretty much par for the course in admin work. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel especially hard done by; it's par for the course for pretty much everything on wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading Q4, I thought it was blindingly obvious that the focus was on saving the article. I don't see how that could really have been read any other way - maybe the confusion is just that different people look at the same answers in different ways, or some other simple thing like that - a paradigm difference. That's why I supported, but added that maybe a bit of coaching /mentoring on that one area could solve any potential problesm in it. Bearing in mind that I thought it was obvious that it was a "save article if possible" approach, rather than a "kill it immediately" approach, I just couldn't understand the pile-on that happened after that; but again, different people, different paradigms. I still don't see that a "save the article" approach could possibly constitute a tendencey to misuse the tools. But then maybe I'm extra-thick today. Pesky (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Earlier less painful intervention re CSD tagging

I'm fed up of trainwrecks at RFA where experienced editors don't discover that their speedy deletion tagging is problematic until they run. I think we can pre-empt some of this by getting more eyes on CSD tagging of candidates at editor review. Would some admins care to join me at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/deletion edits review and offer to review newpage patrollers CSD tags in a less confrontational environment and at an earlier stage in their career? I'm not sure this would prevent the most recent example as that related to a question answer. But I'm sure we can all remember RFAs derailed by CSD tagging errors. ϢereSpielChequers 19:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be much easier if any admin refusing to delete a tagged article simply posted a short message on the tagging editor's talk page explaining their reasoning? Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree (with WSC). Despite what some think, RFA isn't here for the purpose of flaming people off the project, and something which will quietly warn off unsuitable candidates before they enter the flamepit is a good thing. Re Malleus, ideally yes, although in practice the "declined" edit summaries ought to say why. – iridescent 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WSC as well. Re Malleus: It would but how to make them do so? We are lucky if admins are willing to use reasonings that people can understand at all (there are a number of admins who think "troll", "non-notable", etc. are sufficient reasoning for their actions). Regards SoWhy 20:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, would you say that a good edit summary when removing the tag should be sufficient? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be quite happy with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

One possibility would be to encourage more people to use these vector.js scripts, which log all the speedies you make, and allow you to very easily check whether your speedy nominations are ending up deleted. I don't know how widespread it is, but I stumbled across it by chance and it's a great learning tool. The log looks like this User:Physics_is_all_gnomes/CSDlog (the comments about mistakes added by me manually).

//TW CSD script, customized to log all CSD noms.

importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/twinklespeedy.js');

//TW PROD script, customized to log PRODs and endorsements.

importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/twinkleprod.js');

--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, another Twinkle fork that we need to merge into the rewrite! Anymore out there? Whatever gets left behind won't work with the new version and will certainly die when HTML5 gets turned back on. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Although both ER and the above script might be helpful, I don't agree that ER is the main route out of our difficulties, because we've tried ER and all kinds of ways over the years to get people interested in these issues before RFA, and often thought we had something interesting going, and it has always fizzled out. For whatever reason, both the candidates and the voters/reviewers don't get properly serious about reviewing the candidate until around RFA time. Could we get a bot that tells us whenever people create a nomination page, so that well-wishers can drop by before the page is transcluded to look at the candidate's tagging and help them make their case for RFA? There are some possible downsides, but I can think of fixes. Even if the candidate's RFA went up in flames, they would still be getting some support for their work before the RFA. Remember that we all seemed to agree that if you go to take your driver's test and the examiner is criticizing you the whole time you're trying to take the test, that's bad? If we all agreed, why are we still doing it? I think we need to get out of the candidate's face and give them some assistance while they're trying to put their case together, before we start the RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Malleus on this, Yes we should inform the editors when we decline tags, and some of us have long been doing that - years ago Iridescent declined one of my speedy tags when I first started newpagepatrolling. If more editors can be persuaded to do this there is a nifty script in my monobook, and incorrect speedies don't need an admin to decline them - any editor is welcome to do so. But many common CSD tagging errors involve excess haste, such as A1 or A3 tags in the first minutes of creation. If you are the admin looking at that tag a few hours later and the newbie who submitted the article has been driven off then the tag may have become correct. Also the process of informing a newpage patroller of an incorrect tag won't necessarily pick up whether this is an isolated example by someone who rarely makes mistakes or part of a pattern. Editors at editor review are requesting feedback, often before submitting an RFA I think it would be useful to get more of us involved there. ErikHaugen makes a valid point about edit summaries, and that works for editors who look through their contributions and where tags are declined, but I recently saw an RFA where the candidate was tagging articles as A7 that admins were deleting as G10. A for Dank's point, I can't remember this particular initiative being tried before, and I agree that it might fizzle out, but I can't see it doing harm and I for one intend to put some time into this. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what we need ... competent, reputable people keeping an eye on it, making sure it's not fizzling out, and dealing with the unintended consequences. I'm still very bothered that we aren't giving the candidate more breathing room and support before RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't realize that so many admins don't provide feedback. I've had several cases of admins leaving detailed messages on my talk page nicely explaining things like that while the article could have been A7 or G11, which I knew, he changed my A7 to G11 because that takes precedence. Good to know. I have the feeling that the admins who don't leave feedback might be the ones who don't fully understand the criteria themselves. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've (almost) always given feedback, sometimes directly or more often by removing a CSD tag with a useful edit summary - ("Does not meet A7 but notability dubious - suggest WP:PROD or WP:AFD") etc. Can't see any reason why people would not. I'm not sure what the thrust of this is WSC. Surely we inform editors that they made a "mistake" (I use the word with caution) so they can better work with our policies and guidelines, rather than so they can get admin buttons - particularly as edior review is explicitly not "RFA-lite". This seems a perilous route of glorifying adminship to those that know best - (Admins are editors who know every nuance of policy)) - which in both my tongue-in-cheek paraphrase and reality just ain't so. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It certainly isn't so, as has been amply demonstrated tonight and during this recent RfA. And as for civility blocks .... Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't work in cases when people are opposed for taggings of articles which other admins agreed with and deleted. Numerous times I have seen an oppose with an admin-only link to some article that got tagged and deleted, but was apparently wrongly tagged - even though another admin deleted it. Who is to say what is credible, or what is important? It's vague, and different people interpret it differently. AD 21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been using User:Ale_jrb/Scripts recently, which assists with leaving a talkpage message on rejecting csd/prodding, and it's working well for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• HUGE issue that needs addressed for sure! Spot on WSC. I was lucky, Pedro actually pointed out some of my CSD work, and then SoWhy worked with me on the understands of the various cats., but there are a ton of folks who show up, have a bad tag mentioned ... and get a huge "Huh?" on their face. Civility? .. we still carry that old monkey around at RfA? ..,., Baaahaahaaa.... hey all. — Ched :  ?  22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't carry that monkey around, never have, and it seems to me that fewer and fewer administrators are being allowed to get away with civility blocks. But that's another story; we're discussing CSD tagging here, and hopefully not just for the benefit of admin wannabes but for the benefit of all editors. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I was never a big "get rid of it fan" .. but I know people can go months without realizing they are making bad tags, that's for sure. In fact, if you don't go back and check yourself .. you might NEVER know you're doing a piss-poor job with CSD at NPP. — Ched :  ?  22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would wish that editors who tag would at least watchlist the tagged pages to see what happens, not that my wishing will make it happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I was suprised the other day to learn that Twinkle doesn't auto-watchlist A7 tags for you. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The default configuration is to only watch g3, g5, g10, g11 and g12. I suspect the reasoning is that those pages are likely to be recreated. However, I would think that A7 falls into that category as well. It's a simple change to add it if we want. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to add that. I personally watchlist anyways, but I'm sure I have forgotten some. Regards, MacMed_stalk 00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe as an optional configuration item? I use WP:CSDH for my SD work and that can be configured to do a variety of things, including notifying taggers and keeping track of all declined speedies. Possibly Twinkle can optionally do the same for tagging? Regards SoWhy 09:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A tracker would be nice. I started CSD-tagging more recently and I watchlist every article I tag. Everytime an article is deleted, I note what the admin deleted it under. That has helped me tag much better. I had one declined recently by an admin who noted on my talk page why. That was also most helpful but I would've seen the edit summary anyway.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle is already fully customizable. We will also merge the fork that provides the option to keep a CSD log. —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought the focus at RFA on speedy deletion is misplaced. If you're a little short of complete knowledge of every facet of the criteria you can just look them up. Closing AFDs is much more challenging and requires much more thought and judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied.