Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 21 December 2006

Archives

RFA discussions prior to June 2003 took place on a mailing list Archived RFA votes Archived unsuccessful applications since April 2004 Archived successful applications Archived discussion about RFA For discussions from June 2003 to present see /Archives Rfa discussions may also be at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard Rejected proposal for Misplaced Pages:Early Close of Requests for Adminship

• ]

Misplaced Pages Admin vs. Wiki-X Admin - transferable skills?

Seed for a discussion: This contains reference to a current RfA - therefore, if you feel it is inappropriate to discuss this matter until that RfA has run its course, please let me know.

There is a current RfA in which a candidate for Misplaced Pages adminship has experience as a Wikinews admin. The question I have is what the general thought is on the transferability of skills between Wikimedia projects with respect to adminship. The only other Wikimedia project I've worked on to any degree is Wiktionary, so my experience is too limited to have an inkling of what being an admin in other Wikimedia projects might entail.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember a RFA where the user had relatively little experience here (3k or 5k edits, can't remember now), and many were refusing his request, until someone pointed he was an admin in another Misplaced Pages language with over 20k, and then most negative opinions turned positive. Personally, I think administrator status in other Misplaced Pages languages can be used to demonstrate experience in dealing with users and responsibility, but unless the user also demonstrates knowledge about our "local" policies and guidelines, it should not be "transferable". -- ReyBrujo 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know why many people call 5k edits "not a lot". To me, that's definatly enough edits to support, as long as the user is knowledgeable and in good standing. TeckWizContribs_@ 22:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another data point, from my analysis of November 2006 RfAs: the only candidate with less than 2000 edits who was successful had been an admin on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. John Broughton | Talk 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ReyBrujo, I think you mean Kpjas. Titoxd 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to add an optional section to the RfA format entitled something like 'Prior Admin Experience' in which a candidate (or nominator or anyone so knowledgable) could summarize experience in adminship on another Wikimedia project if such experience exists. That would help to encapsulate input from that axis upfront rather than having it come out during the discussion period. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Users should most certainly mention that they're admins on other wikis. However, I don't think we need to add another RfA section to denote this; there's already a "General Comments" faux-heading that it could go under quite easily (and is used as such in the linked example). As for whether those skills are directly interchangeable, I think ReyBrujo summed up my opinion very well; a knowledge of the MediaWiki system is shown by being an admin (well, ideally...), as is the trust of the community, but there still needs to be evidence that the editor is familiar with Misplaced Pages's... quirks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO this comes up infrequently enough that an additional section is unnecessary; most candidates who have relevant previous experience do point it out. A 'previous experience' section is only going to get people talking about that one time they were on Student Council for a semester, no matter how clearly it's worded. Opabinia regalis 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin on another project goes to trust, ability to remain calm, and presence of common sense not to policy knowledge. While being an admin on another project can be a positive the candidates must have understand .en policy. JoshuaZ 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly benefits from being an admin on another project: You already know what you're doing, know many of the "tricks of the trade" (that is, how to handle some of the stranger aspects of the software), gnerally have experience dealing with other users in an admin role, and you aren't as likely to succumb to the "Ooh! Shiny buttons!" problem. (Kidding!) There are, however, vast differences between most projects and en.wp, so demonstration of local-policy/proceedure knowledge is essential. I'm an admin on four wikis (En.wp, En.wq, Meta, & Commons) and each is it's own uniqute community and has it's own way of doing things; I find every once-in-a-while that I step on a toe or two over on Wikiquote because of my "en.wp" way of doing things. So, certainly, adminship elsewhere speaks to a certain familiarity with the role, but a demonstration of *local* understanding is very, very important. Essjay (Talk) 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As Essjay said, it removes their need to "test" the new tools because they have experience but it is important that they know the wikiPEDIA policies on blocking/deletion/protection etc. I think I would be more likely to support a user if he/she were an admin on another project, it shows they are trustworthy for a start. James086 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think in general transfer of trust works well the other way. We are the largest Wikiproject out there with the most evolved (one might say convoluted) procedures and guidelines and such, and to my knowledge the most stringent standards for admins. Although it is not for us to decide, I believe that any capable admin here would also be capable on most of the other projects, except of course for language barriers, and excluding Meta itself. On the contrary, I would consider adminship in another project to count for much only if it was one of the other large projects, such as dewiki. (Radiant) 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As an admin on the English language Misplaced Pages, I oppose automatic adminship on other Wiki-X projects, and vice versa. All Wikis have their own community standards, and if someone has little experience on a particular site, they shouldn't be granted adminship without having the proper experience on that site. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Titoxd, it is Kpjas's RfA. I remember Firsfron made a push in the middle of the RfA and contacted all the people who opposed Kpjas (such as myself) and we all ended up changing our votes to support. Anyway, back to the topic...I believe that if a candidate is an admin on another WikiProject, that shows that he/she clearly has the qualities as an admin. However, all WikiProjects are different, and like Zoe said, if they don't have a sufficient amount of experience here, then I don't think they can truly handle the responsibility on the English language wikipedia. Also, take in account that the English language Misplaced Pages is the most popular and most-visited WikiProject, and the experiences a user may experience at another wiki may be totally different than the ones he/she may experience at en.wiki. Nishkid64 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Adminship is not transferrable, have never been, should never be. We don't even accept adminship from other language Misplaced Pages projects as a reason to obtain one here. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • People are not advocating transferable adminships. They are talking about the notion of tranferable skills. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Make it skills then, I'm referring to that as well. - Mailer Diablo 22:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about RfA standards

are you supposed to have a special amount of contributions to be requested for Adminship? IWishIWasASuperstar 9:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there are no official standards, but no one with less than 1,000 edits has made it in a long time. 2,000 is a more common minimum, and 3,000 puts all the edit counters to rest. That said, there are other factors that are more important than an edit count.--Kchase T 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading here some time ago that once a user had 2000 edits, whether they succeeded or not on RfA was unaffected by their edit count, statistically speaking. --ais523 11:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That was one of the conclusions from Durin's stats. There was no correlation between edits and success rate once you got over 2000 edits. --Tango 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: see Image:SuccessRatevsEditsatRfA.png--Tango 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My number crunching (above) for November 2006 found that the success rate for those with under 2000 edits was 7% (one out of 15 candidates), and even that was a special case of sorts - the person had been an admin at the Simple English Misplaced Pages (that would be you, Tango). Above 2000 edits, the sample size was too small to draw much of a conclusion, except that it appeared that edit counts weren't a factor (for example, 3 of the 5 candidates with between 2000 and 2500 edits were successful). Certainly, as KChase says, once you hit 3000, people focus on what you've edited (AfDs, CfDs, user pages , etc.), not how much in total.

My sense, both from reading RfAs and the charts that Tango has pointed out, is that the number of edits that successful candidates have is rising. In November, the average (mean) number of edits for the 33 successful candidates was almost 9,000; the median was 6,880 (the mean was pulled up by a candidate with 22,000 edits and another with 30,000). That compares to an average of around 6,000 for February and March 2006. (Durin charted these figures by week, which increases the fluctuation, but the trend is clear.)

To me the most surprising thing about Durin's figures (for June 2005 through March 2006) is that candidates with between 900 and 1500 edits had a success rate of around 40% (around 30% at the low end, near 50% at the high end), compared to 0% in November 2006 (my figures). That's quite a difference, so perhaps November was unusual in some way. But I do think that as the average edit count rises, the minimal expecatation rises, at least for a sufficiently large number of editors who will prevent lower-count candidate from getting anywhere near the 80% or so support that is considered (admittedly, not in concrete) to be a benchmark of consensus here. John Broughton | Talk 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If November was unusual it was in that people were more willing to support borderline candidates (how else could a user with less than 2000 edits (ie. me) pass unanimously? Even with the adminship on simple.). 40% does sound quite high, but not enormously - once you get over 1000 edits, you stand a good chance. Maybe it's just a difference in who's standing during the different time periods - we used to get good candidates with low edit counts, we don't any more. Maybe we've scared them all off with the strict standards (I almost didn't stand because I expected my edit count to stop me succeeding). --Tango 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not "scared them off" as much as "delayed their candidacy"? Eight edits per day is 250 per month; four months equals 1000 edits at that rate. Someone who wants to be an admin should certainly have enough time to do 8 edits a day; they'll get to 2000 edits soon enough that way. John Broughton | Talk 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to template text

Initial discussion

The boiler plate RfA text the introduces the standard questions reads:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

Since we're always pointing out that this isn't a vote, how about we change the language to something like:

Dear applicant, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for evaluation:

—Doug Bell  16:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I currently like the way it stands. I think applicant sounds too much like I am applying for a job, or appling to grad school or an internship. That is not what being an administator is. According to wiktionary, candidate means

1. A person who is running in an election or who is applying to a position for a job.
2. A participant in an examination.

I see RFA as kind of an examiniation of somebodys intentions, experience and capabilities should they be promoted. (I do think the term promoted is improperly used but that is a conversation for another day). I think in this case, the 2nd defintion fits the process perfectly and overall, I think candidate is a well chosen word and should stay. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Voters → Evaluation is fine, but Candidate should stay. -- Renesis (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I will agree with the changing Voters → Evaluation, I missed that change when looking at it the first time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed with changing "voters" but not "candidate". --Durin 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're tinkering with wording, may I suggest "standard" rather than "generic"? Or even dropping the adjective entirely; "few questions" might be fine. (One reason for suggesting "standard questions" is that perhaps we can go to a section for "Standard questions" and a section for "Additional questions".) John Broughton | Talk 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with getting rid of "generic". Either suggested alternative is fine with me. —Doug Bell  19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we just drop the qualifier entirely? Clarifying the sentence further: Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide some guidance for evaluating your request: - jc37 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also approve Jc37's wording, seems to best state what the process will involve without envoking it too much as a vote.¤~Persian Poet Gal 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Me three on Jc37's wording. —Doug Bell  21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with getting rid of "generic" and switching "voters" to something less... well, !vote-based. Candidate seems fine, though. -- nae'blis 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem replacing generic with standard. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, with have consensus, except on one word - I've put a new subsection heading in, below, to separate that discussion from this one. To recapitulate, we're at:

• Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide some guidance for evaluating your request:

And if consensus wishes to retain the word voter(s), then simply:

• Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide voters some guidance for evaluating your request:

We can substitute just about any noun clause for "voters", such as "your fellow Wikipedians":

• Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide your fellow Wikipedians some guidance for evaluating your request:

I'm fairly neutral on what the actual noun clause should be. - jc37 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion got a bit split. I added a suggestion below: Dear fellow Wikipedian. Thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. The evaluation process is now open. Please spend some time and answer the following basic questions. These will give editors evaluating your request a starting point to your views, interests, contributions, and understandings of Misplaced Pages.

This seems to cover most of the points raised, and also is more direct about what is being asked for, and why, in a friendly manner. See below. FT2 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"voters" - in, out, or other?

Not that it matters but I continue to oppose changing "vote/voters" to more confusing and awkward terms for the sake of political correctness. --W.marsh 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Why do you feel "voters" is the best option, though? In real-life settings I've used "participants" and "members of the group" for consensus discussion, though that's a bit of a misnomer here. -- nae'blis 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Because RfA is very vote-like and what we do when we comment corresponds very closely to any definition of voting. Expunging any use of the word "vote" does more to confuse new users than it does to make RfA not vote-like, despite popular opinion. --W.marsh 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's face the truth: without any codified standards or process to becoming an admin, an RfA is a popularity contest and Support or Oppose is a vote. We might as well drop all pretenses about voting being bad and be honest about the current process. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, why not just drop the last five words? If a candidate thinks he/she has the option of not answering the generic/standard questions, then he/she is virtually by definition unqualified to become an admin, due to lack of understanding of the process, as I'm sure one of the first evaluators/voters/commentators/whatever will be sure to say. We could even consider it a little test. John Broughton | Talk 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree they may be unqualified, but I do not think it would be proper to make it, "a test", I think we want the instructions to be clear as possible and removing the last 5 words would not help with that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The answers aren't so much "guidance", they're a starting point and some standard basic questions, for others to get insight into the would-be administrator's understanding and hopes, especially for those people who would like to participate and express a view but don't know them yet.

Maybe a better wording is: Dear fellow Wikipedian. Thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. The evaluation process is now open. Please spend some time and answer the following basic questions. These will give editors evaluating your request a starting point to your views, interests, contributions, and understandings of Misplaced Pages.

(I'm sure the language could be improved a bit, that's what collaboration's for.) FT2 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The flow of this discussion is almost impossible to follow, so I'm not sure where to reply, but I disagree with making the intro statement longer. It doesn't offer anything else, and it was simple and to the point before. We only needed some minor changes, and I think the original proposal of changing "voters" to "evaluation" is enough. I also dislike the phrase "spend some time and answer" as opposed to "take the time to answer". The second one is less colloquial and makes more sense. -- Renesis (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

("Take your time" can sound a bit like "you are being judged on this"; "spend your time" doesn't have quite that flavor. Its a minor difference though. That's why, anyhow.) FT2 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I didn't realize the purpose in the change. I can see what you mean if it did say "Take your time", but with "Please take the time..." it doesn't seem to have that connotation to me (it just seems like a simple request). But that's just me. Either way, I think we need to back up and not inflate this introduction unnecessarily. -- Renesis (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Practice Vs. Policy

The RfA instructions read:

Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may de-list a nomination, but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.

This is clearly not practice, obviously failing RfAs are removed somewhat often by non-b'crats. I count 4 times in the past 2 weeks alone, , , , . None were particularly controversial as far as I know. So my question is, should practice change? E.g. more actively encourage admins to wait for b'crats like the page says to do? Or should we change the RfA page to specifically allow non-b'crats to close discussions in some cases? Or just keep it the way it is, and continue to allow admins to ignore what the page says in the spirit of IAR? --W.marsh 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's not causing any problems, leave it as is to avoid Misplaced Pages:Instruction creep. --tjstrf talk 01:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess... but a policy that needs to be ignored a 4 times out of 100 edits to a page might be due for review (I looked at the past 100 edits to find the examples). --W.marsh 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about instruction creep, tjstrf, but leaving the wording this way has the potential to cause problems. All we need is for a (0/6/2) candidate revert a non-crat's closure, defend his/her re-opening with some wikilawyering, and we have a problem that could be pre-emptively defused if only the rules were modified. Because of this possibility, I support changing it to reflect practice. (And if anyone asks for firm guidelines about when non-crats can perform speedy closes, I'd say simply direct him/her to Misplaced Pages:use common sense, as opposed to actually setting guidelines about when this can happen.) Þicaroon 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Until that happens, this sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Most of the candidates who get removed by admins can see the writing on the wall. I think the more experienced admins who do this discourage them from relisting the noms, as well, which implicitly tells them they're not forbidden from doing so.--Kchase T 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

All the candidates above had less than 50 edits. Unless they were posting FAs in one edit, I'm not seeing a problem.--Kchase T 02:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Solution looking for a problem" isn't all that persuasive. If the problem is likely to come up, then if there are no bad results of the solution, it should just be implemented so that there doesn't have to be a problem. -Amarkov _edits 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if someone did use wikilawyering to reopen an obviously doomed nomination, all that would happen would be a crat coming along and closing it per the previous admin's decision. Or at worst, someone getting a few extra piled on opposes while it ran the full week. No major harm done. Making a note that says "except when common sense dictates otherwise" is unnecessary, because that caveat applies to every policy in existence (except maybe some of the foundational and legal ones).

Explicitly detailing what are meant to be universal exceptions to process is exactly the sort of thing WP:CREEP is against. This suggestion is effectively a policy disclaimer, and I believe all the normal arguments against disclaimers apply here as well. --tjstrf talk 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I neglected to check... if all of these people had fewer than 50 edits it shouldn't be that big of a deal. But the best policy is still one that we don't really find ourselves needing to ignore much in the first place. --W.marsh 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with non 'crats closing obviously failed RFA, (but not *failing*). They should, however at least keep us informed either here or on WP:BN so we can verify the decision and give our approval. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding a section here or at WP:BN to notify you guys of every close would clutter up these discussion pages significantly. A good edit summary when removing an RfA from WP:RFA should be enough, the history is not so active there that you can't easily see what has happened. Only if someone thinks an RfA was removed improperly should they bring it here, so it can be discussed - such instances are quite rare. NoSeptember 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too much of a clutter to add a small note on BN. That page is anyways archived weekly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been following RfA for about 5 months and recall only one instance (Everyking) when a closure by a non-bureaucrat threatened to become controversial. Lately though we have had non-administrators doing closures; that ought to be (and pretty much has) been reserved for clearly unhappy situations. Newyorkbrad 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's generally a good idea for non-bureaucrats to close failing RfAs. In particular, I recall Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Leotolstoy where the candidate repeatedly stated their desire to keep their failing RfA open, but which was closed early by Steel359. The user was not happy about the closing given their repeated request to keep it open. —Doug Bell  05:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rare cases are not the thing to base a general practice upon. If a user strongly objects, then it is certainly proper to bring it to the attention of a bureaucrat, even in a snowball case like the one you cited. I have seen Raul reopen an RfA at the request of the candidate, but this is a rare thing. The closing you cited was not unreasonable, it was open for more than a day and the result was clear. NoSeptember 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Closing RfAs early for being doomed to fail has been controversial for quite a while. Many arguments pro/con have been put forth before. User:Durin/Withdraw policy has some more information about this. Feel free to edit that if you like. --Durin 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• That final suggestion on that sub-page, leaving a message on the user's talk page suggesting they withdraw, has worked well in my experience. Most RfA's that fail due to the contributor being "too new" or "inexperienced" have little to do with their actions indicating inexperience or lack of policy knowledge, but rather that they are simply unjudgeable.If you kindly explain this to them and suggest they wait a month or two, a mature user will probably see the truth behind it and withdraw themselves, saving a potentially difficult argument and a bit of the community's time. As an additional positive factor, any subsequent RfA's they go through can have an opening of "I recognized that I was too early and withdrew my own nomination" rather than "an administrator was forced to close my nomination due to my inexperience", so it's good for them as well. --tjstrf talk 07:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, some of the community is much too quick to say "Insufficient Experience" but there are admins out there with just 2 or 3 months experience of being a regular editor, and there is no way to prove any admin who has been about for 2 years is any better suited to the job than someone with 2 months experience. Just another case of Misplaced Pages shooting itself in the foot. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there is not admin with just 2 or 3 months of being a "regular editor", whatever that means. Extended time on Misplaced Pages is good for allowing enough time for a person to flame out or trust issues to otherwise be revealed, and a certain amount of time on Misplaced Pages is necessary in order to gain experience and understanding of Misplaced Pages. Editors who have been on Misplaced Pages for 6 months may still not have that understanding just by reason of their time on Misplaced Pages, but editors who have been on Misplaced Pages for only a month certainly do not have that understanding. —Centrx→talk • 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain what I mean and I'm going to go away from the 2-3 months bit for a moment. There is far too much emphasis placed on numbers, numbers can be manipulated and it's at the expense of Misplaced Pages. Just recently it's AfD experience, now if I wanted to go for another RfA again tomorrow, I could go through every single AfD from the last 5 days not already closed, and just merrily vote away and that would keep quite a few people quite happy and bag me a few more votes, going by my last RfA, quite possibly enough to pass an RfA. Sadly, to do this, it would mean not actually researching whether the AfD is in good faith, whether the article does meet Misplaced Pages guidelines for notability and/or references and therefore voting accordingly. That's why every single candidate needs to be assessed on their ability to help run Misplaced Pages rather than just numbers and I'd much rather have an admin with 100 AfD contributions where they've shown they've looked through evidence and voted for a good reason rather than just voting for the sakes of it, than someone with 1000 AfD contributions where they've not shown once that they've checked the evidence, and are just voting in agreement with the nomination, what's worse is that AfD regulars can often fall into two distinct categories, each voting the same way 95% of the time. At present RfA is encouraging potential candidates to take part in AfDs purely to bulk up one type of edit as a pre-requisite to becoming a admin, rather than encouraging and training potential admins to actually review items on a case by case basis. It's working contrary to the requirements of Misplaced Pages, rather than generating users who will be able to use the tools, we're creating users who can't use the tools. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be determined by numbers, and one needs to look at what the person says in those AfDs—whether they are mindless empty votes or show that the person considered the article and demonstrates their thinking on the issue. Note though: you can reasonably say that someone who has 0 contributions to AfD does not have experience at AfD, but for people who do have the edits, the evaluation must go beyond that. I think a larger problem is that people are voting "support" without having evaluated the user's contribs at all or having much of an idea of what adminship is. Someone may be opposed on edit count, but should not be supported on it. —Centrx→talk • 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, it's OK to Oppose when there is a tiny number of edits which, unless there are mitigating factors such as experience on a sister project, are likely to show inexperience, but when users start getting upto 100+ edits in a particular namespace (and it does appear to be Misplaced Pages namespace that is the be all and end all of RfAs, perhaps quite understandably) then nobody should Support or Oppose based on edit count at all, but wholly on the quality of the edits. From personal experience you could vote 10 times without checking stuff properly, or you could go through Google, Google News, the newspaper sites and Internet Archive and vote properly and correctly. Sure, there's a lot of crap that doesn't require much in the way of research, stuff like original research, defamation stuff dragged through to AfD but they don't really need to be voted on unless, a good admin should be deleting anyway because they should be doing research before closing. What really needs editor attention is stuff claimed to be non notable or non verifiable because often stuff like this is brought to AfD as part of a grudge or through laziness and inexperience and can quite easily be deleted. And I'd much rather have admins that have experience in this field, than admins with the common sense to delete the crap needing deleted but an inability to check that decent stuff or stuff with potential isn't being trashed. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WIkiProject Requests for adminship?

Given the fact that there is a lot of material related to RfAs (mainly essays but other things as well like Esperanza) I propose a WikiProject to better maintain the process. We could maintain WP:GRFA and maybe (if it's practical) suggest a formal standard for requests for adminship (similar WP:WIAFA, for example) Perhaps we could go as far as writing a page on how to do an RfA thanks.

Thoughts? -- Selmo 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, but keep in mind that every discussion on the subject has determined that formal standards don't work. -Amarkov _edits 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's this: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on Adminship.--Kchase T 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty much what I had in mind. Thanks. -- Selmo 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikiproject on Adminship had a goal of revising the RfA process, not maintaining it status quo. --Durin 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Consolidating things like Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Statistics, which is simple, factual information, and Esperanza's admin pages into one page would, in my opinion, be rather a bad idea. That material does not have the support of the full community, and should not be presented as if it does. If you have thoughts about RFA or links you want to compile, the best thing is to put them in user space, as NoSeptember has done. Chick Bowen 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber's age question

is totally inappropriate. We cannot be asking candidates to reveal personal information. I attempted to talk sense into him before, but no response was ever received. Do people agree that asking this question is reprehensible? If so, does anyone have any ideas on how to stop this behavior? - crz crztalk 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... why can't we? It's not as if anyone is required to answer. -Amarkov _edits 15:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NVM... I see there's been discussion of this previously... No, they're not required to answer. But that doesn't make it appropriate to ask. - crz crztalk 15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in asking to be honest. Most other factors will be taken into consideration before the age issue (if there is one) - you don't tick all the boxes and then suddenly change to "oppose" because they reveal their age. Bubba hotep 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'd be pretty tempted to !vote "oppose" if they said they were a fetus... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'd be inclined to concur. However, they haven't made a fetus-friendly keyboard yet. The placenta sticks the function keys... nevermind! Bubba hotep 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Age is not a restriction on adminship. The question is irrelevant. It is akin to asking what eye color the nominee has. --Durin 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion too. So if it's irrelevant, why bother restricting it? -Amarkov _edits 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think age is plenty relevant, but it's not appropriate to request its disclosure. - crz crztalk 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What? If it is indeed relevant to adminship, then not knowing it would make a judgement ill-informed. So why is it appropriate to not request its disclosure? -Amarkov _edits 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        • What is so hard to understand? I think ageism is appropriate in RfA's. Age could have been disclosed on the user page or apparent from other disclosure. However, I think that requesting personal info such as name, age, address, sex, HIV status, social security number, and sexual orientation is not appropriate. - crz crztalk 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • So, if someone chooses not to disclose their age on their own, people have to make uninformed decisions? Huh? -Amarkov _edits 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I think that age is largely irrelevant; an editor who is 15 can be more mature than an editor who is 25 (I'm assuming that some vandals are adults). I think that the truly immature who seek an RfA will get weeded out, either through their answers or their edits, making the question unimportant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • This is what I was trying to say. If someone is a prolific vandal-fighter, holds themselves well in general discussions, contributes well to XfD and all kinds of policy talk: finding out they are 16, say, should not then count against them. I suppose it is the context in which the question is being asked. Bubba hotep 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • {edit conflict} IMO personal questions such as age have no place in RFAs and even though the question is considered optional many others will oppose since it wasn't answered. — Seadog 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no restrictions on adminship. There are no standards. So by that logic, all questions are irrelevant and it's just a popularity contest. However, the one standard we have is consensus and since everyone is allowed to develop their own standards on what qualities make a good administrator, any question is relevant. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • • • • crz - I totally agree. What I'm about to say on it's own would sound really stupid, so I'll clarify my point before I start, I detest RfAs where numbers come into play, whether it be age, length of time on project or edit count, candidates should be judged solely on the ability to do the job, although I can understand edit count and time on project being a little more relevant to ability to use the tools correctly, age is totally irrelevant. Anyway, onto my comment. I think it should be acceptable (if somewhat frowned upon) for a !voter to revise their criteria and vote according to whether or not the candidates age is displayed on their userpage and if the age is displayed, vote according to the age stated. I fully support any proposal to prevent any editor from asking the age of a candidate openly on their RfA page. If a !voter is really determined, it would, I suppose, be acceptable to ask in private through e-mail the age, but not to disclose the answer on Misplaced Pages. Age should also cover school or college grade/form which would give an idea as to age. Ideally, the 'crats will ignore any votes made regarding age, but there should be no explicit rule as this is always going to cause !voters to find another random and probably equally pedantic reason to oppose. We're only trying to sort out candidates who might make good admins from candidates who might make bad admins through the RfA process, age has nothing to do with that process. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an employer to ask a prospective employee what their age is. The prospective employee can choose not to answer the question if it is asked, but it is STILL wildly inappropriate to ask in the first place. Above, I see a number of fine editors asserting that _because_ the candidate can choose not to answer the question, the fact that the question is inappropriate in the first place is somehow resolved. It isn't. Frankly, asking the question in an RfA places an implied obligation to answer. Just as a teacher cannot proselytize in a public school because they operate in a position of authority, a question about age in an RfA is imbued with an implied authority and places an implied burden on the candidate to answer, whether or not the burden is real. The question is inappropriate and the community should clearly state such and be undivided on the matter. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's irrelevant, but IMO it's due to privacy issues. An editor should never be chastised or treated to any negative backlash for not revealing personal information. For some editors, the disclosure of age could be the final piece of info that enables RL to intersect with Wikilife in ways they don't want, and, in the case of underage editors, it could put them at risk. Anchoress 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (signing in agreement with Anchoress: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

The inappropriateness is another issue I have with it. I mean, sure, I can walk up to a random woman and ask for a blowjob, but that would be very inappropriate (and, worse yet, probably wouldn't work). But, between appropriateness and relevance, the fact that an editor's age is irrelevant is, in my opinion, the stronger reason to oppose the question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you may have killed the conversation whilst people digest that piece of information (with pictures!) ;) Bubba hotep 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The previous discussion that Crz recalls seeing can be found here. Malber uses a template for his de facto standard questions. As it is user space, rather than delete the last question I've asked Malber to remove the last question. I see that Malber applied the template to Asterion's RfA and left off the age question, but it's still in the template. While I've spilled a few electrons on the topic, the two main reasons I find the question unacceptable are privacy and that it is ageist. If a person wants to volunteer this info without prompting, that's their choice, but they ought not feel any pressure to do so. I'm somewhat concerned that one nominee may have felt so (see here). Agent 86 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was there, Crz removed it. -Amarkov _edits 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I just found that now in the edit history. Thanks!Agent 86 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Crz is right. One thing wiki has taught me is that very young editors are still sometimes capable of leadership roles. RfA candidates should be judged by their on-wiki (and wiki-related) actions, nothing else. I think "optional questions" are not really "optional" in the eyes of many as well. Grandmasterka 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just responding to a couple of points made above: (1) "I'm assuming that some vandals are adults" - no need to make an assumption like that. Vandalism is not correlated with age. All ages carry out vandalism, though it does seem to be more prevalent among younger people. Vandalism might help here. (2) "in the case of underage editors, it could put them at risk" - revealing personal information can put editors of any age at risk if someone targets them. No need to emphasise younger editors over older editors.

As for asking the age question, I don't think it is needed. There are times when I am discussing something with someone on-wiki, and they don't quite seem to get something, or they seem to be persistently flippant and immature, and I find myself wondering (how old are you?). As a principle I always try to avoid saying that, as it doesn't help. Judge the actions and the words, not the man (or woman, or boy, or girl). Carcharoth 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that one need not be a teenager to be a vandal. Nothing more was meant by it, though I could have phrased it a bit better, I suppose (for example... I could have phrased it like I just did...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber's response

There are no restrictions on adminship. There are no standards. So by that logic, all questions are irrelevant and it's just a popularity contest. However, the one standard we have is consensus and since everyone is allowed to develop their own standards on what qualities make a good administrator, any question is relevant.

Is this an invasion of privacy? No, because no one is actively investigating this information without the nominee's consent. The nominee can simply decline to answer or come up with some pithy answer. Or they can answer truthfully if they are not bashful.

Is it illegal? I don't think so. Someone stated that a potential employer asking for the same information is inappropriate which is, at least in the United States, incorrect. Any job application will ask for an applicant's date of birth and any HR department records this information. Using this as a basis for making an employment decision is also generally in many circumstances not against the law, at least in the US. Besides, this is a volunteer project and not subject to employment law. And anyone voting Oppose or Support can choose whether or not this question has any relevance on their decision. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't ask the question, but I will defend your right to ask it. Do you add a disclaimer making clear that people really, really don't have to answer the question? Carcharoth 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I may do so, but I would prefer not to pollute the potential answer. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Still the problem with the question is that it has nothing to do with administrative action, I would rather support an eleven year old wikipedian who is a very clever vandal fighter and all around good candidate than a 30 year old who isn't. In my opinion it doesn't help and it puts the younger editor in a little bit of a worry that he has to answer this personal question or his/her RFA will fail. I do not support asking personal questions on an RFA at all. — Seadog 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this would shed some light on Malber's views on teenagers – , , , , , , the last diff on WAvegetarian's comments. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh.. thought he was a teen him self.. anyway those diffs. presented distress me alot. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... I agree with him word for word, and I am a teenager. -Amarkov _edits 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Matthew Fenton on this one, those diffs really shocked me. There is a serious civility problem going on there. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too, the scare me. — Seadog 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the question on par with questions such as, "what color is your hair," "what is your gender," "what is your nationality". None of those questions would be asked, why ask the age question?

Actually, I believe nationality has been asked once or twice, and I remember an oppose because the user in question was Romanian. Stupid, but... -Amarkov _edits 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be negative, but it does not suprise me, lol. It just seems a little absurd to me? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's absurd, there is no concievable way in which country of origin could impact how good of an admin you'll be. But there's no real reason to make an explicit provision to prevent the question, because some people might consider it important, and if the bureaucrat thinks it's absurd, it's within their discretion to discount a few opposes. -Amarkov _edits 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, after thinking about it a little more, I started thinking that. I still stand by my claim though that it hink it is pointless. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The question is inappropriate and irrelevant, but you can't take away people's right to ask foolish questions and inappropriate questions. Let each person the question is asked of either respond or ignore it, as they see fit. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Malber's reasoning leaves me wanting. It is very much an invasion of privacy to ask someone their personal information. The statement, "no one is actively investigating this information without the nominee's consent", is incongruous. By posing the question, Malber is indeed "actively investigating this information". The "consent" is not in the asking of the question (which should not be done), but in the answering (which is unnecessary to answer in any event). There is a complete failure to address how the question is not ageist.

As for the "illegality", I have not suggested that it is illegal per se. As I stated in the earlier discussion, the issue isn't entirely about legal standards. However, those standards (which go beyond employment law) are useful to illustrate the matters at issue. Agent 86 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So the question is ageist. Why does that matter? We're vandalist, we're POVist, we're civilityist, and we're usually intelligenceist. (Yes, I KNOW those aren't real words). Yet nobody seems to care about those. Why? Because they're recognized as being important for an administrator to have. I don't see why discriminating using standards that everybody doesn't happen to agree with is worse. -Amarkov _edits 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just picked up a quote from Jimbo that I feel is fairly relevant: "To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters." I think that sums up the opinion of several editors in regards to the age matter quite well. Let an editor's actions speak louder than their age (and the easiest way to do that is to not ask about the age at all). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Seadog applauds. — Seadog 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if anyone wants to ask me how old I am: I'm old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, but young enough to play naked Badminton on a packed beach in the middle of winter. Bubba hotep 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA, out of curiosity, exactly HOW old is that? lol. If those were requirements for being an admin, I think the age question would be perfectly valid. (thank goodness those arent requirements.) lol. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To EVula: Jimbo was talking about editors, not administrators and the context of the question was about the importance of having experts as editors as opposed to laypersons. My question relates to who we give the mop. Would you want someone who can't drive, can't vote, or can't drink having the capability to block you or delete your articles?

To Agent 86: we're not investigating through a third party, looking into a nominee's permanent school record, or calling their doctor. I'm asking a direct question which can easily be evaded. Plenty of people have cribbed other people's answer to my WP:IAR question. I'm certain anyone uncomfortable with the age question will do the same and crib someone else's pithy answer.

To Nick: Nice research on my diffs, but I stand by what I said. Someone else might be concerned about how you've been keeping track.

To all: This question is designed mostly for other people if they consider it a standard. I've responded on someone else's talk page that I don't normally participate in Support or Oppose discussions unless the answers to the questions move me strongly one way or the other and especially don't if the vote is a landslide in either direction. Otherwise I remain neutral. I wouldn't base my decision solely on the age question. I appreciate a truthful answer but wouldn't oppose if someone didn't answer candidly. However someone else might have stronger misgivings about granting the mop to someone who hasn't gotten out of grade school. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber: I've been following this discussion without commenting in this thread, though I've stated my opinion in similar discussion in the past. You ask above, "Would you want someone who can't drive, can't vote, or can't drink having the capability to block you or delete your articles?" In New York where I am located, one has to be 16 or 17 to drive, 18 to vote, and 21 to (legally) drink. Are you really suggesting that there is a credible view that being under 16 or 18 or 21 is a negative toward being a Misplaced Pages administrator? And are you really suggesting that there is a significant class of RfA candidates who "han't gotten out of grade school"–yet would appear qualified to the !voters unless they were induced to state their age? I see that lower down you say that you "wouldn't base decision on the age question" but I'm still not quite following exactly what you feel the relevance of the age criterion is. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions: maybe and possibly. I haven't queried every participant in an RfA. But there is a perception outside of Misplaced Pages that it is run by adolescents with too much time on their hands. I don't base my decision on the answer to one question. Because I don't have the time to research edit history and dig through diffs on talk pages, I put most of the weight on how a nominee answers all of the questions. —Malber (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the quote wasn't directly applicable, which is why I prefaced it with "I feel is fairly relevant". To answer your question, no, I don't have a problem with someone who can't drive, drink, or vote being an admin, as the three items are entirely unrelated to administering Misplaced Pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why ? - There is the discretion of allowing optional questions to allow !voters to decide how they are going to vote. Your abusing the system asking an irrelevant question and not using the result to !vote each time you ask a question. In light of your answer above stating there is a perception outside of Misplaced Pages that it is run by adolescents with too much time on their hands I think your question about age could well be a violation of WP:POINT, I genuinely think your asking your question to try and prove a point. Why, I don't know but there you go. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it doesn't matter how old you are to be an admin. It doesn't matter if someone asks "how old are you?" All that matters is how you answer the questions. A mature teenager is preferable to a childish adult. And I don't know why you have to fret so much about the reputation of Misplaced Pages; we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to defend its honor (well, we sort of do). Full disclosure: I'm a 16-year-old admin, and I've been deleting articles and blocking people without much problems. --physicq (c) 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that I'm in the minority, but I think that asking an admin candidate for their age is a fair question. As with all questions, responses are optional. -- Samir धर्म 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine ... but ... if the applicant answers the question, what does a !voter then do with the answer? (Frankly, I find the issue of the propriety of the question less critical than some, simply because most younger applicants have enough information on their userpage to give the answer or at least a close range away anyhow. But I still don't see what a reader would do with the information to translate it into a comment or a !vote.) Newyorkbrad 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Until I read through this lengthy correspondence I had thought that there might be some merit in setting a lower age limit on qualification for admin status, although I would have been uncertain as to what the limit should have been. Very early teens, I guess. Having read User:Malbers correspondence with a teenage editor, I now feel that any opinion which he holds is one with which I do not wish to be associated. I am aware that it is being suggested elsewhere that a suggested answer to the age question, if asked, is "Old enough to apply for Adminship" and I would recommend this answer in all cases. I will use it myself if asked in the future. I am 63.--Anthony.bradbury 12:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase the question

Why not rephrase the question? Something like:

• Do you think an admin's age is relevant to the tasks they may need to carry out on Misplaced Pages? Are there cases where an older or younger admin might be more suited to a particular task, or to interacting with particular users? Do you think admins or editors should give an idea of how old they are?

This would be less intrusive than the current form of the question. In all cases of intrusive questions, my thought is that the way the user responds is actually more revealing than the actual content of the answer. If a user gets upset over a question like this, then you start to think to yourself: how would this candidate handle themselves under real pressure? Though any question can be designed to do this, not just an age question. In the recent ArbCom elections, I saw one of the candidates (and only one of the candidates) respond rather bruquesly to an 'age question' that someone else had asked. I followed up on this and found that the responses to my follow-up told me more about the candidate than reading pages and pages of questions and answers. See here for details. I also liked that candidate's response to the age question, that they were under 65, neatly turning the usual implied "are you really young" into an answer that implies "I'm not someone doddering around on a zimmerframe". Carcharoth 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Echoing Newyorkbrad a bit, how does that help us assess the candidate up for nomination? His or her opinion on a generic admin's age is really irrelevant to whether or not the candidate would make a good admin. The only way the answer could help is if the candidate "volunteers" their own age in the context of answering the question. It's a bit subversive - the only way for the answer to be relevant to the nomination is for the candidate to divulge their own age. Agent 86 01:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. On the other hand, the rephrased question does implicate some interesting issues, deeper than "should User:Foo be made an administrator?" I wouldn't mind a bit if someone asked me that question on an RfA, although you'd have to sit through some philosophical ramblings to get to the answer. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Write the essay - you now have me intrigued. KillerChihuahua 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already here scattered in a dozen threads all over the site, but I will have to collect it sometime soon. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting away from the admin question briefly, there are plenty of examples of editing where age does matter. I know that the science pages often have to remove 'helpful' stuff added by schoolkids who have learnt something at school, but who will, in a few years time have to unlearn that stuff and learn what current, mainstream science says (rather than the school textbooks). The reverse is always true, in that years of experience and knowledge in no way stops someone from being completely and utterly wrong. And the really good idea that completely changes things can come from anyone of any age. My feeling about the age question is along the lines of: don't make a big deal out of it, but don't totally ignore it either. Carcharoth 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Diversity among admins

Another thought. It would be reassuring to know that we had admins of all ages. Just as it is good to have editors of all ages (providing they know how to edit), it is good to have admins of all ages (providing they know how to handle the tools). The editor diversity can be seen by randomly visiting userpages, and you soon see the diversity of editors. Randomly visit admin pages, and enough give some idea of their age that you can see the same spread. So again, I support Malber's right to ask the question, but I agree it is generally not relevant. I would, though, ask everyone to consider the next time they make an off-colour joke with another user whose age you don't know, that they really could be anyone, of any age. Carcharoth 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruption, disruption, disruption

... and that is what I see. Malber is setting a classic example of how to disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. I would support a block, in case he continues or does not rephrase his question in a better way. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I would too. The persistent personal information stuff is just not cool. Extra not cool when the userpage states the age clearly. - crz crztalk 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing discussion questions is disruptive. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too - Glad it wasn't just me who thought Malber was disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point.--Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In what way is Malber disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point? —Centrx→talk • 10:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the comments above, and specifically the diffs I have provided. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree that this is disruptive and would support a block if he refuses to remove/rephrase the question. – Chacor 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am strongly opposed to Malber asking the question, and he should stop asking the questions now while this debate is still ongoing but we should get someone external to the discussion to read it and if a block does occur, I would sincerely hope nobody who participated in this discussion does it. Then again, Malber may stop asking the question. James086 13:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone not see this suggestion as being punitive? I suggest a de-admin for Nick. WP:POINT is not policy and can't be used as the basis for a block. Such a block would be contrary to the blocking policy and shows a severe disregard for process on Nick's part. Plus there is no logical argument that asking questions is blockworthy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"I suggest a de-admin for Nick" - a typical response from a typical troll. – Chacor 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If people are allowed to have their own criteria, why can't age be one of them, and why can't the option to answer the question be offered? I honestly don't see the big deal here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, look at the diffs I have provided above. Malber possesses a unreasonable bias against all teenagers. I fail to see how he would not make it a point to oppose every candidate when they say they are minor. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And so what if he does? Why is this an issue? Is he not allowed to have his own criteria for adminship? The diffs above have nothing to do with the subject here - if he's incivil toward younger editors, then deal with that, but don't punish the guy for having standards you disagree with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the top of WP:POINT

This page in a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked.

However if blocked (especially by anyone here) it may be punitive. I think a block would be neither neccessary nor constructive. However I still remain firmly opposed to the question. I can see that if people don't remain calm, WP:CIVIL is going to come into play. Discussing the blocking of Malber and the de-admin-ing of Nick will lead to "nasty" comments if people don't calm down right now. James086 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

/me deadmins himself, wait – that didn't work. Ask the question one more freakin' time and there are a few things that are still working. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose you blocking someone for asking a question like that. His feelings on younger editors are completely irrelevant to whether it's a viable optional question here, especially given the specific lack of general criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

/me deadmins Jeff. *w00t!* — Nearly Headless Nick 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aw hell. That'll leave a mark. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a de-admin for Nick, another recall for myself, a decapitation for Malber, and earl grey all around. - crz crztalk 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

...and a partridge in a pear tree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad we're all having fun here. Mimsy has an axe to grind, so any block by him would be punitive. His muddying of the discussion with out of context talk page discussion is particularly in-civil and unbecoming of an admin. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What... the... heck?

So far today, there have been four RfAs closed early, three of them within an hour of opening, and two within twenty minutes. What is wrong? -Amarkov _edits 05:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

People vote faster?--SUIT 05:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I count five RfAs if your tally is correct. --physicq (c) 05:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're sure you're not counting both the time you removed No1lakersfan and the time Essjay closed it? -Amarkov _edits 05:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm merely seeing a discrepancy in your post. Or is it just me? --physicq (c) 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm counting the ones within twenty minutes for the hour one. The last was closed in three hours. -Amarkov _edits 05:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And what is it with canvassing?

Both of the nominees that weren't just utter and obvious lack of edits got their RfAs killed off because of canvassing concerns. Is it not clear enough that we really dislike canvassing, or what? -Amarkov _edits 05:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it was actually three due to not having consensus because of obvious lack of edits, and only one due to not having consensus because of canvassing. But still, there's another one that's not going to suceed due to that, and I think there might be a third. Is it not clear enough, or do people not read? -Amarkov _edits 05:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I myself hold an extremely low opinion of canvassing for votes, especially for an RfA. Apparently the rash of failed RfAs seems like a bittersweet Christmas holiday present to some. Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to be politically correct? --physicq (c) 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At least we haven't gotten anyone deciding to do something insanely stupid, like responding to every single oppose with flaming. Oops, I jinxed it. -Amarkov _edits 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen one about 2½ months ago. Ironically, the username was an apt representation of his temper. --physicq (c) 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aw man, I discovered RfA about 3 days after that, if I didn't feel comfortable commenting until November. -Amarkov _edits 05:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll find some more soon. I typically oppose candidates who just have to scream at every oppose they get. For reasons why, see my RfA criteria (or rather, they sound like restrictions). --physicq (c) 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. I think it's pretty obvious that replying to every oppose is bad. On another note, you have too good of a RfA standards page. Mine just says "be good". I mean, I have more content for RfBs (which never happen) than I do for RfAs. -Amarkov _edits 05:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to put this on my RfA Criteria page: This in a nutshell: Don't act stupidly on your RfA. And I do have the right to bend the standards as I see fit. ;-) --physicq (c) 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Would just like to point out, for the sake of clarity, that none (at least, none of the ones I closed) were closed due to either lack of edits or canvassing; they were closed because they had greater than 75% opposition with a sufficient amount of votes to make it unlikely they would achieve consensus. It is for the most part academic, but it remains important to distinguish between the reason they were closed and the reason that users chose to oppose. (And I didn't mean for that to rhyme.) Essjay (Talk) 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Same difference. --physicq (c) 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not the same difference. For the RFA to be closed due to canvasing would require a bureaucrat decision to close due to canvassing; we don't do that. We close early because RFAs cannot achieve consensus; users oppose due to various causes. "Essjay closed it due to canvassing" != "Essjay closed it because it had 75% opposition." Essjay (Talk) 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it was an indirect cause. For the purposes of deciding why it failed, it makes much more sense to use that than "it failed because it was failing". -Amarkov _edits 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that it only takes one person to do so and I start receiving nasty posts on my talk page about biased closures. I'd prefer not to have to sort through 100KB of abuse because someone wanted a shortcut. Essjay (Talk) 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'crats can close RfA's that have no chance in hell of succeeding; this was the case with the (0/11/0) and (2/9/0) cases. This is mainly done with newcomers (ie. <1000 edits), who possibly don't understand the general standards for adminship. It is a BITE protection, and a good one at that. Daniel.Bryant 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've struck the shortcuts and replaced with wordiness. But really, why don't you want abuse? It's funny reading people hurling abuse for no good reason. :P -Amarkov _edits 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies

On a related issue about all of these withdrawn RfAs... a fair number of them are not getting added to WP:RFAF. I suspect we are missing maybe 10% of withdrawn RfAs going back many months. If someone wants a project to work on, I would suggest going back through the history of the WP:RFA page to check all the RfAs that were transcluded there and then withdrawn, to see if they made it to WP:RFAF. At an average of about 8 edits a day to WP:RFA, while big, it should not be an impossible task :). NoSeptember 12:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They could be added to your chronological unseccessful RfAs page as well, or have you done that already? Do you work direct from the RfA page, or do you rely on others to update the subsidiary pages? Carcharoth 12:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The priority is to add them to the WP:RFAF lists. I periodically go through the histories of the WP:RFAF subpages to catch them all for my chronological list. I update my list about once every two weeks or so, and always at the end of the month so that I have the statistics I need. Of course anyone else is welcome to update the chronological list if they want to. The fact that no one is checking the history of WP:RFA is the problem, I think we have been missing some. NoSeptember 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I might have time over the forthcoming break... Carcharoth 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Another place I spot some of these failed RfAs is when I look at the history of the bot pages, which I do when looking for the record RfAs. That misses the very short (30 minute) RfAs, but the versions are a lot easier to load than the whole WP:RFA page versions. And I'll also look into this in January, I'm going on wikibreak shortly :). NoSeptember 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting pages over 30 kilobytes

Some RfA pages are over 30 kilobytes in size, such that text cannot be added to them in the edit screen. How can a user vote on such candidates? HalfOfElement29 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You can add text to the edit screen of pages more than 30 kb. Have you seen WP:ANI, at like 400 kb? -Amarkov _edits 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That only works when there are sections (marked by equals signs which create large bold section titles) which are smaller than 30 kilobytes, such that a user can edit a particular section. RfA pages are composed of a single section. HalfOfElement29 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only some browsers that are a problem. I know that IE has real problems at around the 32k mark whereas Safari and Mozilla don't. I must admit that I've often thought that making the three voting sections (Support/Oppose/Neutral) into proper subheadings rather than simply bold text would be a very useful move. Not only would it make it far easier to vote on larger pages, but there'd be some indication of the way the vote is going if it's listed in your watchlist, simply from noting which is the edited section each time. Grutness...wha? 06:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How old a version of IE are you talking about? This hasn't been a problem for quite a while. Half, you might want to try a more recent browser, which should provide an immediate solution to your problem. The possiblity of adding section headers has been discussed in the past and generally disliked because it quadruples the size of the table of contents. Dragons flight 08:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work with netscape either. I second your recommendation. What is the procedure for making such a change? HalfOfElement29 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the bots that monitor RfA may require the layout to remain as is for the time being. I would recommend talking to the bot's creators before making any changes. Canadian-Bacon 06:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What bots are those? And who are their creators? HalfOfElement29 06:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The only one I know of is User:Tangobot which produces This report. It's run by User:Tangotango. There may be other bots im not aware of though. Canadian-Bacon 07:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also User:DFBot which produces User:Dragons flight/RFA summary. Agathoclea 08:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bots? Tough. Most people using AfD don't refer to bots. We don't create pages for the benefit of bells and whistles. Splitting the support/oppose/neutral sections makes perfect sense. Let's do it. The bots can catch up when they can.--Doc 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with a reeealy good reason why we need automatic RfA summaries, yeah, the bots can deal. It would hardly be a big tweak for them. Don't split it up until at least the discussion section, though; there's no reason to kill off Mathbot. -Amarkov _edits 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mind clarifying which browsers are not working? I don't think IE is currently having problem or we would have spotted it very long ago (since majority of users use IE), and Netscape usage is ~0.5% according to the statistics in Usage share of web browsers. Are we going to make such major change for this?

As for the bots, currently bureaucrats use them to perform tasks such as detecting duplicate votes, so their readability have to be taken care of for any changes. --WinHunter 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well then inform the bots. It can't be that big of a change, can it? -Amarkov _edits 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed before and there is a problem that splitting the individual RfAs makes the table of contents on the main page far too long. I came up with a solution, which various people improved upon, I'm not sure why it wasn't implemented in the end. It should be in the archives somewhere. --Tango 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)