![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 170 |
What's stopping me? Irony. Doing so would only lead to a dozen or so new threads (by admins editing through the protection)about whether or not an admin blanking a page to get everyone's attention was in fact a valid way to do so, or was in fact disruptive. Each of those subsequent threads would spawn new sub threads and arbitrary breaks about how we all spend too much time creating sub threads and arbitrary breaks. This page is so utterly convoluted and cyclical and useless. And I'm an optimist by nature. Of course, I realize just STATING these obvious point will likely produce several threads about how presumptuous it all sounds. Sigh. I'm convinced that until more people begin to realize how much of a time sink this page has become (just read the archives if you don't believe me, and I'll freely admit I'm guilty for my part), it will likely never be useful or relevent. to close, please don't respond here. Responding here anything of any level of seriousness to my whining only proves my point. Don't respond with some sort of "well do something about it" retort either. Respond here with something quippy if you must. Or archive it, and then start a new thread about whether useless threads should get archived preemptively. And then another about whether we should be archiving each other's ramblings at all. Keeper | 76 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:COFFEELOUNGE now redirects to this page :). Ceran thor 01:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody forces you to read the damn thing. You keep seeing it on your watchlist because you have WP:RFA watchlisted and this comes with the package. Just because you see it on your watchlist doesn't mean you have to read the thing every ten minutes, let alone comment on it. 92.8.228.252 ( talk) 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
~ mazca t| c 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that people come in and make some bold proposition about how they are going to close RfA talk and how this is a completely pointless page filled with useless discussion. If you honestly believe that then just leave. Posting sections about how RfA talk is a pointless page filled with useless discussion leads to useless discussion and brings the page closer to being utterly pointless by packing it with "waaagh, I'm going to close it down". How about you do as that IP suggested; if you have an issue, take it off your watchlist, walk away and stop adding to the problem. Ironholds ( talk) 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole thing is the most pointless thread I've ever seen on this page. There's only one possible thing that results from posting purposely useless threads: drama. This has certainly been achieved. Some people happen to like discussing adminship here. So what if they're old proposals that we've heard time and time again? Some people like to talk about them. Threatening to blank and protect or whatever you're trying to accomplish here is a really bizarre suggestion. What point were you trying to prove by posting that, Keeper? I can't see what useful purpose doing so serves to anyone or anything. Someone ought to blank this section and we'll forget it ever happened. Majorly talk 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing a piece in the all-one-colour jigsaw of RfA voters here..? Is this a trend we can expect to be continued in the future, or a fad? GARDEN 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's test the water and see where we can get with recall.
User:Rdsmith4 (Dan) is pursuing an interesting idea of occasionally being part of a recall "contract". That could work, or we might be able to get consensus on some broad proposal, but I think there are several really solid reasons not to go crazy with new recall procedures. We don't have time for it; if there's a fight over taking someone's bit away, that will draw attention away from the RFAs because it's more exciting. The best reason is the
Peter Principle, which says that if you're not careful, everyone in an bureaucracy winds in a position they're not competent to fill, because everyone gets promoted until they get to a job they suck at, then they stay in that job. The same applies to groups and processes, like RFA;I got a complaint that I'm rambling. I love complaints btw. RFA has been so successful that some people want to "promote" it to do something it wasn't designed for and would suck at. Even talking about recall during an RFA can suck up time unproductively.
But consider this option, which avoids those problems: suppose after every RFA that fails with a percentage of 65% or more, the crats poll the opposes and neutrals privately after the RFA, and ask them this question: were you pretty sure the candidate is not ready, or was the problem that stuff had happened, especially recently, and you didn't know how to interpret it, and you didn't want to take the risk of getting stuck with a bad admin? If the candidate submits to some kind of recall procedure during a short trial period (maybe a guaranteed second trip to RFA 3 months in the future, or maybe only redo the RFA if there's some kind of recall vote), would that mean you'd be willing to take the chance and switch your vote? if they would be willing to switch their vote if some kind of recall criteria were established for the candidate (probably for a fixed length of time). This wouldn't suck up any extra time at RfA ... in fact, it might save us having to do another RfA 3 months later ... and it would address the most common complaint, which is that lack of recall is raising the bar so high that we're throwing away qualified candidates. - Dan
Dank55 (
push to talk)
04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Garden's original question, these kind of opposes have been happening for a long time, they just seem to be more common at certain times than others. I should know as my RfA over a year ago had some (two with one withdrawn), probably because it was just after another controversial incident over AOR. I said in the RfA I was going to be open to recall, when the opposes appeared I confirmed I would still be open to recall, the RfA passed and I am still open to recall now. The drama that was claimed that would materialise by me becoming an admin in AOR has never happened, I plan to keep it that way. I do find it slightly funny that my first RfA nomination for Ged UK has also received similar opposes. I am not worried about them, as they rarely (if ever?) make a difference to a result of an RfA due to their small numbers, and some users do support based on recall as well. I would not object to candidates refusing to answer the recall question in an attempt to the keep RfA about other things (as it should be IMO), though that may not work. I am happy that Ged UK gave an answer either way on the issue, though I respect candidates are not obliged to do what they say in the RfA questions, and if candidates change their mind, they should be free to do so. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
To respond to the post that started this thread: I think that the previous consensus to not ask the question about recall should be enforced. If it's asked, it should just be removed, as it obviously creates far more drama than it's worth.-- Aervanath ( talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, no one has taken it up with me. I have opposed other candidates that used recall as a crutch to get over the fact that they had other issues in their RFA - see here where I moved to neutral from support due to a poor recall promise. Here where I oppose someone for making a recall promise to aleviate concerns. I don't ask candidates to be open to recall, but I do oppose them when they try to convince people to vote for them by promising that if they think they should resign they will resign, and you can have a worthless vote or poll or tic-sheet to try to convince them. Shockingly, everyone is "open to recall," because step N-1 in recall (just before desysoping) is convincing the person who is open to recall they should resign, and thats the only important step. That's the same for everyone on the encyclopedia - including Jimbo. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay I've been taking in all these arguments about age and adminship but the argument has been one sided and now it's time for younger editors to provide my their agreements on this once more but this time in a more civil manor. And so I present to you Wikipedia: RFA my argument.
I think it's about time that a new policy should be added to Wikipedia. The main argument about all editors younger than the age of 17 just isn't ready to be and admin. Some people use connections to real society to make their argument saying "we wouldn't let a 9 year old fly a plane even if he had qualifications" and such along those lines. But once again, Wikipedia isn't the real world. Though you could get sued or you may have info leaked, that doesn't mean a younger editor isn't able to avoid those problems. Most of the time, younger editors are able to pass RFA and then the word of their age doesn't get out until after the RFA. But really, Wikipedia is not that serious. People may say "it's one of the most visited sites" but once you get up from the CPU you lead a total other life. So why should your life in the outside world be connected here. Why can't responsible young editors who can go long enough without loosing their cool be able to receive a mop just because they have a bed time, or have homework, or doesn't drive themselves where they need to go? What if we said that older editors were just to serious and narrow minded to understand everything on Wikipedia. Things would go up in an uproar. Me as an editor didn't prove my maturity as a new editor but some could argue to think that over the time of just 6 months, I was able to change my attitude and control and think about what I type before I press save. So if I ever go for an RFA after about 2 more years and I'm 15, will I be denied just because. If so is it really fair. Some argue that young editors shouldn't be permitted to edit on Wikipedia. Do you know how many edits would be loss. Wikipedia is already slowing down but a slaughter of accounts would almost kill off active editing So I need all those editors who read this, be opened minded and think, would want to be discriminated against just because. Thank you-- N. G. G. 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
@Majorly
@Dragon
I've been sitting back and looking at this thread. I have several comments:
@NGG: I do agree that young editors who run for adminship will be mercilessly barraged with narrow-minded opposes due to their age. Wikipedia is somewhat biased against teenage (and younger) editors. It's not something that can be stopped, thanks to GTD and Scott.
@GTD: You point out that underage editors are not mature enough to deal with the controversial area of BLPs, therefore should not be allowed to become an admin. Where is it set in stone that all admins must deal with BLPs? At a New York meetup last year, we discussed young admins possibly leaving such duties to older, of-age sysops. Younger sysops (I'm saying 13 as a prerequisite minimum, since I think that being a teenager is the absolute minimum an admin should be) would be fine blocking vandals, deleting certain types of pages, protecting heavily vandalized articles and those kinds of tasks. Just because there is one area that younger admins should not wander into does not mean that young editors shouldn't be admins at all.
@Scott: According to your perspective, all underage editors should be banned from editing. Does this mean that the few who take it seriously enough and actually realize that it is harmful to some people should be stopped from editing for no apparent reason? Don't blanket everyone under the same identity. I'd like to point out that I don't really see any occasions of children being seriously harassed. Most stalking incidents I've seen are from high-profile adult admins who deal in contentious areas. Most incidents of such BLP "trouble" come from adult editors/admins. Lastly, JarlaxleArtemis, whom some would say is our most notorious vandal, is over 18. How prejudiced is that? Allowing someone like him to edit while people like Anonymous Dissident are not allowed? Take a good look at what you are saying, and don't blanket all underage people who edit Wikipedia under the "naive" label. Sam Blab 11:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sam/ Shappy talks the talk, but given he was caught with his trousers down (ie with 10 troll accounts!), perhaps he's a good example of why minors should be encourage to keep off WIkipedia for their own good GTD 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Saying someone's contributions are worthless and crappy because of their age is just plain stupidity.-- Patton t/ c 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Stating that age affects an individual's ability to edit or administrate successfully is ridiculous, in all honesty. Some very good administrators, past and present, have been under the age of 16 and a lot of editors wouldn't bat an eyelid unless they were told their age. Sam's view that the project has "no place for minors" is pretty insulting, too (although I'm not a minor, I was once upon a time, and I certainly would have been editing better than a lot of older editors that we have). Esteffect ( talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This one is even more ridiculous than most. Editing a new page doesn't even create a patrol log entry. Can we please stop now? Mike R ( talk) 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding ignorant, according to my log I didn't record any page patrol until a year AFTER I got the mop. Maybe this wasn't recorded prior to then... Hiberniantears ( talk) 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me emphasize my point that the only way to get an entry in the patrol log is to click the patrol link at the bottom of a new article. Editing the article will not create an entry and will cause the "patrol" link to disappear. That is why pointing to someone's patrol log is ridiculous. A good new page patroller will most likely make at least one edit to a new page, whether to tag, copyedit, categorize, add references or whatever. Mike R ( talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Among the logs at the bottom of X!'s new edit counter, "Pages patrolled" is included and counted. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the patrol log for any editor is really all that indicative of whether they've been involved in NPP. First, because the "mark patrolled" hasn't been around forever. Second, I don't think its all that uncommon to do patrol-like work without bothering to hit the button. I know a few people who do that, and its not like I spend my days talking to people about NPP. Avruch T 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
rcid
. Get a dev to work on that problem and you will notice a lot more patrolling.Re: how will we ever keep up with FlaggedRevs? I'm sorry, but the answer to that is actually somewhat obvious. Before I get to it, though, let's keep in mind that FlaggedRevs isn't some wholly new and untested extension that we might use the live 'pedia to beta test. It has been done on a sizable, popular Wikipedia and the results are in. They indicate that the backlog is not unmanageable. Now to why: Watchlists. New pages are, well, new; no one looks at them in the normal course of doing something else. Patrolling new pages is a specific and boring task. Keeping an eye on the pages you've contributed to, or are interested in, is a completely different animal. The comparisons are facile and fall down upon inspection, and let's not continue to repeat them as if they were gospel. Avruch T 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I know this is getting old, but here are some updated statistics on the velocity of edits being made to Wikipedia. Have fun! MBisanz talk 06:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm on to something here, I'm thinking we can make everyone happy, and this will even perform better than expectations, but you be the judge. One arbcom member just said that he would vote to accept a case roughly like this one: candidate is 4 days into their RFA, vote is 70/30 (this isn't about Ironholds, btw), the opposers are generally agreed that, let's say, the candidate sometimes loses his temper, but they think he's otherwise okay. Candidate makes an announcement: "I am now formally offering desysopping criteria. The supporters are supporting based on overall performance; the opposers have legitimate concerns about a particular issue. I agree with the supporters, but I acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the opposers, so let's test this: give me the mop anyway. For the next 6 months, if at any time you see me losing my temper, you should bring a case to ArbCom stating that I violated my own recall criteria and should be desysopped." The arbcom member said that if a case was brought and it looked like the candidate had violated his own criteria, he'd vote to take it ... in fact, he'd welcome that case, since it's a lot clearer than a lot of the cases that are brought to ArbCom. I'm inviting comment, and when we get comments, I want people to keep in mind the tale of the blind men and the elephant. There are maybe 10 different, significant things that are bugging people, and some people are going to say "this won't work because it doesn't address X" and some will say "this does work because it addresses Y". A gentle request: please don't invalidate other people's opinions that don't address your legitimate concerns, because not everyone is on the same page. This is complex; be patient, and I'll be patient too. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A likely objection is: "This can't work because if you ever put desysopping of any kind on the table during the RFA, we know from experience that it generates a lot of heat and not a lot of light": right, and that puts important constraints on what will and won't work. We should advise candidates in the RFA Guide that, if they decide to do this, they should not do it in response to a request to do it; yes, that will make some voters happier, but it will raise the suspicion with more voters that you believe that you're sinking and you need a lifeline, and will work against you. Therefore, we advise this: sometime during the 4th day of your RFA, if a solid majority believes you are fit for the mop ... say 65% or more ... but the opposition has serious concerns that they can't predict your future behavior, then offer RFA criteria saying that if they observe the suspected future behavior in the next 6 months, then you believe that's worth being desysopped for and you would support them taking you to ArbCom for that. On the other hand, if what you're seeing in the opposition looks less like a reasonable specific doubt, and more like trying to force you to submit to recall because they don't trust admins in general, or because they have a concern that you really can't see a legitimate reason for, or if you can't identify specific criteria that would make them happy, then you should say "no" on the 4th day, and state your reasons; people will respect that. I keep saying "the 4th day" because it's not going to work to ask the opposition to make sure to check in in the last 2 days to see if you offered any recall criteria that might change their minds; a lot of voters don't check in that often. And it's not going to work to consider desysopping criteria on the 2nd day, and 3rd day, and 4th day; that will create a distraction and work against you. If you're going to do it, do it once, on the 4th day. We'll make a general announcement so that voters will be expecting this, and will know to check back if they think it might make a difference in their vote. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I got an emailed question about which result I'm trying to accomplish; all and none. I'm trusting that if we give people a suitable platform to voice their concerns, and set up a few rules that minimize the unintended consequences (such as suggesting to candidates that they do it only on the 4th day), then voters will (or won't) voice their concerns, and what happens next is up to the voters. Consider WP:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith; that one failed with around 70%. She has a long wiki-resume and has always been helpful and friendly, but the opposers brought up good points along the lines of: we don't know if we have enough evidence to predict her future performance, and we don't know how to interpret what's going on in this RFA. I would hope in a situation like this the candidate would be clear-headed enough to say: 70% of the voters, including everyone who knows my work, think that I know policy, but you guys have legitimate concerns that I don't know it; if in 3 months, anyone believes that I have avoided AIV and CSD, or that I tried but failed, that I demonstrated that I don't know AIV or CSD policy, then take a case to ArbCom; I'm declaring to ArbCom that I was asking the voters to take it on faith that I knew and would correctly apply the policies (as written on those pages ... the criteria have to be specific, or ArbCom probably won't take the case), and if I said that just to get "elected", then I believe ArbCom should desysop me for that. Then the voters would decide whether that statement addresses their doubts. Most voters in most cases will say that they do not have doubts, and this will not alter their vote; it's a few voters in a few cases we're talking about. Also, the discussion itself may give the crats useful information about how to interpret the will of the community in discretionary cases. [This was just an example; AIV and CSD were not the issues in that RFA.]
Btw, I think it's clear that we're not wedded to ArbCom here; we want to use them for sure at first, because this is what they do; it will give ArbCom some nice clear cases, and give people a better understanding of how ArbCom operates. But when we've got a routine going, when we have consensus about what it means to pass or fail recall criteria, then the decisions might be seen as straightforward enough that the issue could be decided by a crat chat. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
My take is this. Recall is a voluntary process. You should vote for admins you trust, if you don't trust them then a voluntary recall means very little and should not effect your vote. Arbcom should apply the same standards to administrators. This should not be based off of campaign promises, but rather the communities expected behavior of all admins. Chillum 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ironhold's Law strikes again. Skomorokh 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 170 |
What's stopping me? Irony. Doing so would only lead to a dozen or so new threads (by admins editing through the protection)about whether or not an admin blanking a page to get everyone's attention was in fact a valid way to do so, or was in fact disruptive. Each of those subsequent threads would spawn new sub threads and arbitrary breaks about how we all spend too much time creating sub threads and arbitrary breaks. This page is so utterly convoluted and cyclical and useless. And I'm an optimist by nature. Of course, I realize just STATING these obvious point will likely produce several threads about how presumptuous it all sounds. Sigh. I'm convinced that until more people begin to realize how much of a time sink this page has become (just read the archives if you don't believe me, and I'll freely admit I'm guilty for my part), it will likely never be useful or relevent. to close, please don't respond here. Responding here anything of any level of seriousness to my whining only proves my point. Don't respond with some sort of "well do something about it" retort either. Respond here with something quippy if you must. Or archive it, and then start a new thread about whether useless threads should get archived preemptively. And then another about whether we should be archiving each other's ramblings at all. Keeper | 76 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:COFFEELOUNGE now redirects to this page :). Ceran thor 01:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody forces you to read the damn thing. You keep seeing it on your watchlist because you have WP:RFA watchlisted and this comes with the package. Just because you see it on your watchlist doesn't mean you have to read the thing every ten minutes, let alone comment on it. 92.8.228.252 ( talk) 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
~ mazca t| c 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that people come in and make some bold proposition about how they are going to close RfA talk and how this is a completely pointless page filled with useless discussion. If you honestly believe that then just leave. Posting sections about how RfA talk is a pointless page filled with useless discussion leads to useless discussion and brings the page closer to being utterly pointless by packing it with "waaagh, I'm going to close it down". How about you do as that IP suggested; if you have an issue, take it off your watchlist, walk away and stop adding to the problem. Ironholds ( talk) 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole thing is the most pointless thread I've ever seen on this page. There's only one possible thing that results from posting purposely useless threads: drama. This has certainly been achieved. Some people happen to like discussing adminship here. So what if they're old proposals that we've heard time and time again? Some people like to talk about them. Threatening to blank and protect or whatever you're trying to accomplish here is a really bizarre suggestion. What point were you trying to prove by posting that, Keeper? I can't see what useful purpose doing so serves to anyone or anything. Someone ought to blank this section and we'll forget it ever happened. Majorly talk 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing a piece in the all-one-colour jigsaw of RfA voters here..? Is this a trend we can expect to be continued in the future, or a fad? GARDEN 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's test the water and see where we can get with recall.
User:Rdsmith4 (Dan) is pursuing an interesting idea of occasionally being part of a recall "contract". That could work, or we might be able to get consensus on some broad proposal, but I think there are several really solid reasons not to go crazy with new recall procedures. We don't have time for it; if there's a fight over taking someone's bit away, that will draw attention away from the RFAs because it's more exciting. The best reason is the
Peter Principle, which says that if you're not careful, everyone in an bureaucracy winds in a position they're not competent to fill, because everyone gets promoted until they get to a job they suck at, then they stay in that job. The same applies to groups and processes, like RFA;I got a complaint that I'm rambling. I love complaints btw. RFA has been so successful that some people want to "promote" it to do something it wasn't designed for and would suck at. Even talking about recall during an RFA can suck up time unproductively.
But consider this option, which avoids those problems: suppose after every RFA that fails with a percentage of 65% or more, the crats poll the opposes and neutrals privately after the RFA, and ask them this question: were you pretty sure the candidate is not ready, or was the problem that stuff had happened, especially recently, and you didn't know how to interpret it, and you didn't want to take the risk of getting stuck with a bad admin? If the candidate submits to some kind of recall procedure during a short trial period (maybe a guaranteed second trip to RFA 3 months in the future, or maybe only redo the RFA if there's some kind of recall vote), would that mean you'd be willing to take the chance and switch your vote? if they would be willing to switch their vote if some kind of recall criteria were established for the candidate (probably for a fixed length of time). This wouldn't suck up any extra time at RfA ... in fact, it might save us having to do another RfA 3 months later ... and it would address the most common complaint, which is that lack of recall is raising the bar so high that we're throwing away qualified candidates. - Dan
Dank55 (
push to talk)
04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Garden's original question, these kind of opposes have been happening for a long time, they just seem to be more common at certain times than others. I should know as my RfA over a year ago had some (two with one withdrawn), probably because it was just after another controversial incident over AOR. I said in the RfA I was going to be open to recall, when the opposes appeared I confirmed I would still be open to recall, the RfA passed and I am still open to recall now. The drama that was claimed that would materialise by me becoming an admin in AOR has never happened, I plan to keep it that way. I do find it slightly funny that my first RfA nomination for Ged UK has also received similar opposes. I am not worried about them, as they rarely (if ever?) make a difference to a result of an RfA due to their small numbers, and some users do support based on recall as well. I would not object to candidates refusing to answer the recall question in an attempt to the keep RfA about other things (as it should be IMO), though that may not work. I am happy that Ged UK gave an answer either way on the issue, though I respect candidates are not obliged to do what they say in the RfA questions, and if candidates change their mind, they should be free to do so. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
To respond to the post that started this thread: I think that the previous consensus to not ask the question about recall should be enforced. If it's asked, it should just be removed, as it obviously creates far more drama than it's worth.-- Aervanath ( talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, no one has taken it up with me. I have opposed other candidates that used recall as a crutch to get over the fact that they had other issues in their RFA - see here where I moved to neutral from support due to a poor recall promise. Here where I oppose someone for making a recall promise to aleviate concerns. I don't ask candidates to be open to recall, but I do oppose them when they try to convince people to vote for them by promising that if they think they should resign they will resign, and you can have a worthless vote or poll or tic-sheet to try to convince them. Shockingly, everyone is "open to recall," because step N-1 in recall (just before desysoping) is convincing the person who is open to recall they should resign, and thats the only important step. That's the same for everyone on the encyclopedia - including Jimbo. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay I've been taking in all these arguments about age and adminship but the argument has been one sided and now it's time for younger editors to provide my their agreements on this once more but this time in a more civil manor. And so I present to you Wikipedia: RFA my argument.
I think it's about time that a new policy should be added to Wikipedia. The main argument about all editors younger than the age of 17 just isn't ready to be and admin. Some people use connections to real society to make their argument saying "we wouldn't let a 9 year old fly a plane even if he had qualifications" and such along those lines. But once again, Wikipedia isn't the real world. Though you could get sued or you may have info leaked, that doesn't mean a younger editor isn't able to avoid those problems. Most of the time, younger editors are able to pass RFA and then the word of their age doesn't get out until after the RFA. But really, Wikipedia is not that serious. People may say "it's one of the most visited sites" but once you get up from the CPU you lead a total other life. So why should your life in the outside world be connected here. Why can't responsible young editors who can go long enough without loosing their cool be able to receive a mop just because they have a bed time, or have homework, or doesn't drive themselves where they need to go? What if we said that older editors were just to serious and narrow minded to understand everything on Wikipedia. Things would go up in an uproar. Me as an editor didn't prove my maturity as a new editor but some could argue to think that over the time of just 6 months, I was able to change my attitude and control and think about what I type before I press save. So if I ever go for an RFA after about 2 more years and I'm 15, will I be denied just because. If so is it really fair. Some argue that young editors shouldn't be permitted to edit on Wikipedia. Do you know how many edits would be loss. Wikipedia is already slowing down but a slaughter of accounts would almost kill off active editing So I need all those editors who read this, be opened minded and think, would want to be discriminated against just because. Thank you-- N. G. G. 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
@Majorly
@Dragon
I've been sitting back and looking at this thread. I have several comments:
@NGG: I do agree that young editors who run for adminship will be mercilessly barraged with narrow-minded opposes due to their age. Wikipedia is somewhat biased against teenage (and younger) editors. It's not something that can be stopped, thanks to GTD and Scott.
@GTD: You point out that underage editors are not mature enough to deal with the controversial area of BLPs, therefore should not be allowed to become an admin. Where is it set in stone that all admins must deal with BLPs? At a New York meetup last year, we discussed young admins possibly leaving such duties to older, of-age sysops. Younger sysops (I'm saying 13 as a prerequisite minimum, since I think that being a teenager is the absolute minimum an admin should be) would be fine blocking vandals, deleting certain types of pages, protecting heavily vandalized articles and those kinds of tasks. Just because there is one area that younger admins should not wander into does not mean that young editors shouldn't be admins at all.
@Scott: According to your perspective, all underage editors should be banned from editing. Does this mean that the few who take it seriously enough and actually realize that it is harmful to some people should be stopped from editing for no apparent reason? Don't blanket everyone under the same identity. I'd like to point out that I don't really see any occasions of children being seriously harassed. Most stalking incidents I've seen are from high-profile adult admins who deal in contentious areas. Most incidents of such BLP "trouble" come from adult editors/admins. Lastly, JarlaxleArtemis, whom some would say is our most notorious vandal, is over 18. How prejudiced is that? Allowing someone like him to edit while people like Anonymous Dissident are not allowed? Take a good look at what you are saying, and don't blanket all underage people who edit Wikipedia under the "naive" label. Sam Blab 11:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sam/ Shappy talks the talk, but given he was caught with his trousers down (ie with 10 troll accounts!), perhaps he's a good example of why minors should be encourage to keep off WIkipedia for their own good GTD 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Saying someone's contributions are worthless and crappy because of their age is just plain stupidity.-- Patton t/ c 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Stating that age affects an individual's ability to edit or administrate successfully is ridiculous, in all honesty. Some very good administrators, past and present, have been under the age of 16 and a lot of editors wouldn't bat an eyelid unless they were told their age. Sam's view that the project has "no place for minors" is pretty insulting, too (although I'm not a minor, I was once upon a time, and I certainly would have been editing better than a lot of older editors that we have). Esteffect ( talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This one is even more ridiculous than most. Editing a new page doesn't even create a patrol log entry. Can we please stop now? Mike R ( talk) 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding ignorant, according to my log I didn't record any page patrol until a year AFTER I got the mop. Maybe this wasn't recorded prior to then... Hiberniantears ( talk) 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me emphasize my point that the only way to get an entry in the patrol log is to click the patrol link at the bottom of a new article. Editing the article will not create an entry and will cause the "patrol" link to disappear. That is why pointing to someone's patrol log is ridiculous. A good new page patroller will most likely make at least one edit to a new page, whether to tag, copyedit, categorize, add references or whatever. Mike R ( talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Among the logs at the bottom of X!'s new edit counter, "Pages patrolled" is included and counted. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the patrol log for any editor is really all that indicative of whether they've been involved in NPP. First, because the "mark patrolled" hasn't been around forever. Second, I don't think its all that uncommon to do patrol-like work without bothering to hit the button. I know a few people who do that, and its not like I spend my days talking to people about NPP. Avruch T 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
rcid
. Get a dev to work on that problem and you will notice a lot more patrolling.Re: how will we ever keep up with FlaggedRevs? I'm sorry, but the answer to that is actually somewhat obvious. Before I get to it, though, let's keep in mind that FlaggedRevs isn't some wholly new and untested extension that we might use the live 'pedia to beta test. It has been done on a sizable, popular Wikipedia and the results are in. They indicate that the backlog is not unmanageable. Now to why: Watchlists. New pages are, well, new; no one looks at them in the normal course of doing something else. Patrolling new pages is a specific and boring task. Keeping an eye on the pages you've contributed to, or are interested in, is a completely different animal. The comparisons are facile and fall down upon inspection, and let's not continue to repeat them as if they were gospel. Avruch T 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I know this is getting old, but here are some updated statistics on the velocity of edits being made to Wikipedia. Have fun! MBisanz talk 06:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm on to something here, I'm thinking we can make everyone happy, and this will even perform better than expectations, but you be the judge. One arbcom member just said that he would vote to accept a case roughly like this one: candidate is 4 days into their RFA, vote is 70/30 (this isn't about Ironholds, btw), the opposers are generally agreed that, let's say, the candidate sometimes loses his temper, but they think he's otherwise okay. Candidate makes an announcement: "I am now formally offering desysopping criteria. The supporters are supporting based on overall performance; the opposers have legitimate concerns about a particular issue. I agree with the supporters, but I acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the opposers, so let's test this: give me the mop anyway. For the next 6 months, if at any time you see me losing my temper, you should bring a case to ArbCom stating that I violated my own recall criteria and should be desysopped." The arbcom member said that if a case was brought and it looked like the candidate had violated his own criteria, he'd vote to take it ... in fact, he'd welcome that case, since it's a lot clearer than a lot of the cases that are brought to ArbCom. I'm inviting comment, and when we get comments, I want people to keep in mind the tale of the blind men and the elephant. There are maybe 10 different, significant things that are bugging people, and some people are going to say "this won't work because it doesn't address X" and some will say "this does work because it addresses Y". A gentle request: please don't invalidate other people's opinions that don't address your legitimate concerns, because not everyone is on the same page. This is complex; be patient, and I'll be patient too. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A likely objection is: "This can't work because if you ever put desysopping of any kind on the table during the RFA, we know from experience that it generates a lot of heat and not a lot of light": right, and that puts important constraints on what will and won't work. We should advise candidates in the RFA Guide that, if they decide to do this, they should not do it in response to a request to do it; yes, that will make some voters happier, but it will raise the suspicion with more voters that you believe that you're sinking and you need a lifeline, and will work against you. Therefore, we advise this: sometime during the 4th day of your RFA, if a solid majority believes you are fit for the mop ... say 65% or more ... but the opposition has serious concerns that they can't predict your future behavior, then offer RFA criteria saying that if they observe the suspected future behavior in the next 6 months, then you believe that's worth being desysopped for and you would support them taking you to ArbCom for that. On the other hand, if what you're seeing in the opposition looks less like a reasonable specific doubt, and more like trying to force you to submit to recall because they don't trust admins in general, or because they have a concern that you really can't see a legitimate reason for, or if you can't identify specific criteria that would make them happy, then you should say "no" on the 4th day, and state your reasons; people will respect that. I keep saying "the 4th day" because it's not going to work to ask the opposition to make sure to check in in the last 2 days to see if you offered any recall criteria that might change their minds; a lot of voters don't check in that often. And it's not going to work to consider desysopping criteria on the 2nd day, and 3rd day, and 4th day; that will create a distraction and work against you. If you're going to do it, do it once, on the 4th day. We'll make a general announcement so that voters will be expecting this, and will know to check back if they think it might make a difference in their vote. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I got an emailed question about which result I'm trying to accomplish; all and none. I'm trusting that if we give people a suitable platform to voice their concerns, and set up a few rules that minimize the unintended consequences (such as suggesting to candidates that they do it only on the 4th day), then voters will (or won't) voice their concerns, and what happens next is up to the voters. Consider WP:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith; that one failed with around 70%. She has a long wiki-resume and has always been helpful and friendly, but the opposers brought up good points along the lines of: we don't know if we have enough evidence to predict her future performance, and we don't know how to interpret what's going on in this RFA. I would hope in a situation like this the candidate would be clear-headed enough to say: 70% of the voters, including everyone who knows my work, think that I know policy, but you guys have legitimate concerns that I don't know it; if in 3 months, anyone believes that I have avoided AIV and CSD, or that I tried but failed, that I demonstrated that I don't know AIV or CSD policy, then take a case to ArbCom; I'm declaring to ArbCom that I was asking the voters to take it on faith that I knew and would correctly apply the policies (as written on those pages ... the criteria have to be specific, or ArbCom probably won't take the case), and if I said that just to get "elected", then I believe ArbCom should desysop me for that. Then the voters would decide whether that statement addresses their doubts. Most voters in most cases will say that they do not have doubts, and this will not alter their vote; it's a few voters in a few cases we're talking about. Also, the discussion itself may give the crats useful information about how to interpret the will of the community in discretionary cases. [This was just an example; AIV and CSD were not the issues in that RFA.]
Btw, I think it's clear that we're not wedded to ArbCom here; we want to use them for sure at first, because this is what they do; it will give ArbCom some nice clear cases, and give people a better understanding of how ArbCom operates. But when we've got a routine going, when we have consensus about what it means to pass or fail recall criteria, then the decisions might be seen as straightforward enough that the issue could be decided by a crat chat. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
My take is this. Recall is a voluntary process. You should vote for admins you trust, if you don't trust them then a voluntary recall means very little and should not effect your vote. Arbcom should apply the same standards to administrators. This should not be based off of campaign promises, but rather the communities expected behavior of all admins. Chillum 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ironhold's Law strikes again. Skomorokh 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)