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 105 | ← | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | → | Archive 115 |
Why is not considered more unacceptable/irritating for a recently promoted or failed candidate to compulsively spam the talk pages everyone who voted in the RfA? It almost seems as if candidates feel this behavior is expected of them. Does anyone actually like this practice?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no harm in this practice. If a candidate feels gratitude to those who supported him or her, there is no reason to be cross if he or she says so, in a location where people are guaranteed to see it. I know that I felt good about thanking the people who supported my own RfA, and dropping each of them a brief note saying so, some tailored to the specifics of their particular comments. With all the incivility and name-calling we have to deal with from time to time, I think it would be more than a little regrettable if we adopted a community norm against people saying thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's my two pennies, since Pedro is probably talking about me... unless lots of people don't thank him, which wouldn't surprise me. Let me first apologize if my thanks spam annoyed anyone. I was 110 in before The undertow notified me that it was discouraged. I'd gotten so many over the months, I thought it was expected. But I would like to note that I customized mine depending on the various votes of support to thank my supporters for precisely what they'd done, whether it be a simple support, a strong support, or either of those and a dash of defense of my character, etc. Also, there were some that I really wanted to give a special note to, and I felt it would be very discourteous to only send a pretty note to some but not other supporters. Plus, I like them. But I'm a girl... I like that pretty stuff. Now, as for my opposers, I dropped a line (not the pretty card) to those who had legitimate opposes. I thanked them for taking the time to really consider my candidacy and bring up legitimate concerns. I told them that I understood those concerns, had learned from those situations and looked forward to proving them wrong in their fears, honestly. I wasn't being sarcastic or rude about it. At least one appreciated it. I meant to get to the neutrals, but work came, then time had passed, and it just fell from the todo list. My apologies there. If anyone feels I overlooked them and would like a thank you, please drop a line on my talk page. I'll either give you the belated thanks with an apology, or explain why I didn't feel it appropriate to be fake and spam your page. As for you, Pedro: If you want your thanks, give me your email. A very special card, custom-made just for you has been waiting since before my RfA concluded. :) Lara ❤ Love 07:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was too dazed to thank anyone in any form the day the sysop bit fell on me. After a day or two I recovered but I think nobody will kill you if you don't thank them... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that RfA contributors should only vote their conscience and only support the nomination if they think it is good for Wikipedia. I will therefore not canvass any thank you messages on people's pages who voted for me, nor will it affect my attitude towards anyone who votes against me.
Back in my day *hobbles around on zimmer frame* (ok, April 2007), it was a more common practice than it is now, indeed it was more or less expected of a candidate. As I recall I only thanked my supporters (to save time, if nothing else). (As it was also HM the Queen's birthday, I added in a "Vivat Regina" as well. :-)) However, I agree it's a complete waste of time, and I wouldn't do it if I had an RfA now. Walton One 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There exist those topics of discussion that are not amenable to policy or guideline. This is one of them. There exist those topics of discussion that are not worth everyone writing a paragraph about. This is one of them. I can't quite believe how much pointless chat has been produced over something so irrelevant. It's as if in the absence of "RfA is broken (n+1 th nomination)" we have this instead. Splash - tk 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the practice is more noticeable at the moment as more admins are getting through at present, and if "the same ol' names" keep commenting at RfA, they'll get a lot of post. So the answer, obviously, is to stop commenting on RfAs, and then the spam will magically stop. (err...) Bencherlite Talk 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (who didn't spam his supporters (not that it would have taken long, and he had no opposers to thank anyway (grin!)) because he isn't great at pretty banner messages and it was far more fun to delete some real sp*m at CAT:CSD...)
Is this becoming more of an issue lately? I've not participated in RfA as of late but as far as I can tell this isn't a problem as much as it was back then. And anyway, someone who does not want to see RfA thanks messages posted on their talk page should simply say so on their talk page. That takes care of the problem right away. - Pilotguy contact tower 01:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(OK, maybe not that different but at least it breaks up the text, non?) While I will undoubtedly grow sick and weary of them, RfA thanks/notes perform a different function for me: They allow me to have a post-RfA contact with a new admin or someone who didn't achieve adminship. I don't know about anyone else, but I have no acquaintance with the vast majority of admins. There's, what, about 1500 admins now? The RfA process remains a type of good behaviour/best foot forward affair. How someone acknowledges their RfA success or failure speaks to me of their character and how they will act post-RfA. However personalized or impersonal such messages are, they express the candidate's vision of their future to some extent. Am I reading waa-a-ay too much into these often rote messages? Is this perhaps projection on my part? Sure, but it remains a point of contact between me and them. Like an election (and yes-i-know-it's-not-vote), people who expressed an opinion in an RfA are almost like constituents to the RfA candidate, responsible for shaping the issues discussed and the tenor of it. There's a reason why many of these thank yous include a phrase like "If I can do anything for you, please let me know." There's a feeling of special and specific obligation to those participants even though the participants are essentially representing the wider WP community.
Connected to that is the "community" of Wikipedia. Yes, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to be friends or buddies with everyone, but a collegial atmosphere does not grow out of purely mechanical contributions or interaction; it also requires some level of trust of each other's decisions and actions. This is a social aspect of WP and its importance in shaping community shouldn't be discounted. So, for the moment, I like RfA messages. All too soon, I will become jaded and indifferent to these artifacts of WP culture, desiring only to block vandals and delete pages through my superior familiarity with WP policy, wanting my talk page to be clear of excess clutter. But still... Cheers, Pigman what?/ trail 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"My God, guard my tongue from evil, and my lips from speaking deceitfully. To those who curse me, let my soul be silent; and let my soul be like dust to everyone."
I say these words in Hebrew three times every day as part of the standard Jewish prayer service. As I prepare to comment on recent developments, I say these words again.
First, I wish to thank Riana and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me, and I thank everyone who showed a tremendous degree of respect not normally offered to people who have committed crimes against Wikipedia. I also thank Deskana for putting the discussion to rest before it got out of hand.
Though I keep most of my feelings on this matter to myself, I share a few very important ideas with the community.
It should not be necessary to state this, but since some of the "oppose" voters cast suspicion on my current level of integrity, I must not allow such allegations to stand in silence. I was asked to prove that I am not currently vandalizing Wikipedia under alternate accounts and IP addresses, as I have admitted to doing in the past. It is impossible to prove that I am not vandalizing Wikipedia, just as it is impossible to prove that space aliens do not exist. Without complete information about the workings of the universe, we cannot definitively prove that space aliens do not exist. Similarly, without complete knowledge of how I spend my time, you cannot definitively prove that I do not vandalize Wikipedia.
As I stated on the RFA, I occasionally edit from my IP address without logging in. The IP address at my home is currently 71.174.224.76. In the last two months, I have not edited Wikipedia outside my home, and nobody else in my home has edited Wikipedia. You can convince yourself that this is my IP address by comparing the interwiki links on the Hebrew Wikipedia from this IP address to the corresponding English articles which I translated from Hebrew.
Originally I decided that I would never again run for adminship, but after careful consideration, I decided that "never" is too long. I do not know whether I will still be active on Wikipedia five years from now, and if I am still active, I probably will not want sysop access anyway.
Please do not offer to nominate me for adminship one or two years from now. I am not interested.
I have admitted what I did wrong. I have apologizing specifically to every editor and administrator who was involved in cleaning up the messes I made. In June I committed to follow the rules, and I have upheld that commitment. I disclosed all of this, providing links where relevant, in my opening comments at the RFA.
I hoped that it would convince people that I am on the right track. It didn't happen.
Accordingly, I will ask an administrator (privately, by email) to delete User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/RFA review and other user and user talk pages relating to the past.
A number of users, both before and during the RFA, raised concerns about my application of the snowball clause in closing XFDs before the five or seven day period of discussion has ended. Though I continue to defend my past decisions, I will not apply the snowball clause in the future.
It would be helpful if the community could clarify (1) when it is and is not appropriate to apply the snowball clause, and (2) whether non-administrators are on equal footing with administrators to apply the snowball clause in clear "keep" situtations. It's hard to follow a policy when the policy itself is unclear.
Some people mistakenly believe that Wikipedia already has all the articles it needs, so the remaining tasks are to maintain and improve the existing roster of articles. Actually, Wikipedia is still missing thousands of articles on highly notable topics.
I recently discovered that many of the towns and villages in Israel do not have articles on the English Wikipedia. I have translated about a dozen articles from the Hebrew Wikipedia about kibbutzim and moshavim in the Beit She'an Valley. I hope to translate articles about towns and villages in other regions of Israel. I am surprised that, after almost seven years of Wikipedia's existence, this has still not been done.
Undoubtedly the same lack of information exists for other countries where English is not the primary language. (See, for example, List of postal codes in Algeria). I challenge the community to create English articles for every incorporated city, town and village anywhere in the world within the next five years. Using my ability to translate from Hebrew (and, to a lesser extent, from other languages) to English, I will do whatever small part I can.
Best regards,
Shalom (
Hello •
Peace) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(*sigh*) -- I'm sorry to have to play the part of the old grumpy man here (regardless of the fact that I am in fact a relatively old man and am sometimes grumpy), but leaving a long "you missed out on a good thing, sweetie" letter on this talk page is really inappropriate. The statement: "I will not apply again for adminship via the RFA process for the next five years" is a horribly melodramatic plea for wikilove, especially when it's clear that this person is indeed "good admin material", but is perhaps a bit impatient to recieve the forgiveness he has clearly earned. Wikipedia is not group therapy, and it is not a drama group. You're a good, standup guy, Shalom, and you shouldn't feel the need to play games. Feel free to canvass me when you do another RfA in 6 months or so, but please try not to say things you don't mean. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Could a non-participant or bureaucrat close: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flaminglawyer & Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Finale Wiki Geek. They both seem to be heading towards snow. Thanks. Rudget. talk 16:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain how consensus can be two different percentages? RfA is traditionally 75%, and RfB is 90%, but how can that be? And why? RfA is basically a vote, which bureaucrats don't need any "judgement" to close, so why is it so much harder for admins to become one, when normal admins can close incredibly difficult AfDs which do need judgement? Sorry, I'm just curious. Thanks, Majorly ( talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. I am here to announce that the
Toolserver has now released a new edit counter on their 'stable server' which is a dedicated server for 'stable tools'. If you are interested, you can see it at
http://stable.ts.wikimedia.org/editcount. The syntax for the edit counts should be in the format of http://stable.ts.wikimedia.org/editcount/result?username=<USER>&projectname=enwiki_p
. —
E
talk
BAG 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Doesn't seem to be working now. I got an "internal error" when I tried to run an edit count on my account. Has this happened to others? Useight ( talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Kudos to DGG, who has asked great questions on some of the open RfAs. I particularly like the part of one question asking for the nominee's views on a policy problem currently under dispute, and the one asking if, in the nominee's opinion, we currently have xyz policy "exactly right". They're great ways to probe the minds of the nominees as well as to stimulate policy discussion among people who like to discuss policy. (I'd even like to answer the questions myself.) If my plaigiarism could be forgiven, I'd like to add variations of them to RfAs in the future. Daniel has also been offering some very thought-provoking questions lately.
At the same time, Scott5114 has been asked 11 optional questions (and one follow-up) in one day at RfA; getting one question "wrong" on an RfA is more than enough to sink a lot of nominations, and some of the questions involve in-depth scenarios. Are we expecting too much from some of the candidates - particularly in terms of time commitment to their own RfAs - now that the anon-creation issue has been put on the backburner? I say this while recognizing that the other nominations have only 2-5 optional questions, because it is quite possible that the prospects of such an analytical/time-consuming test have reduced the number of nominations again. Dekimasu よ! 08:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Only four open RFAs?! We've lulled! Neil ☎ 14:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
December was slow last year too - only 19 successful RfAs. That said, in December 2005, 69 people had successful RfAs (the record so far) so we can't say that December is always quiet... WjB scribe 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't part of the job of the most junior bureaucrat to drum up some new RfA candidates? :) NoSeptember 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on this discussion I created the above report for those who may find it useful. NoSeptember 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time to have a minimum number of edits required for editors to run for RfA. Here are some of my recent WP:SNOW closures and their number of edits:
I realize that we're hesitant to set a number to ward off people who edit just to up their numbers so they can run, but I don't think we need to set the threshold too terribly high, and there's literally no chance in hell for someone with a hunded or so edits to become an admin (you know it, I know it, we all know it). I think 1,000 edits is a nice round (and reasonable) number (incidentally, that's also roughly my personal threshold for snow-closures). I have faith that the community can recognize simple gaming of the system, and there's no guarantee that just because someone has 1k edits they'll become an admin. I'm just looking to weed out folk that think they have a shot, only to shot down with varying degrees of kindness over the process.
It should be noted that several other projects have minimum requirements. Some examples:
I think trying to tie a chronological requirement to RfA candidacy is going to be an uphill battle, so I'm suggesting our threshold be based on just a bare minimum of edits performed (again, just meeting that requirement is no guarantee for success; someone with 1,001 edits could very easily be seeing a "sorry, but..." message from a 'crat a week after). Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Convinced on the need, not convinced on the rationale of mentioning snow. WP:SNOW is not for the purpose of measuring edit count alone after all. Imagine this; A candidate with 3,000 edits but who was 24hr blocked for a viscous attack during an edit war the week before they launch an RfA. The RfA gets to 1/20/0 in 24 hours. Now that's a SNOW close as the process has no chance of succeding. If we're going to set a minimum bar to people running we don't need to mention SNOW. We have a straight forward policy, clearly stated in the various templates (like meta does) that says "The minimum standard required to request adminship is 1,000 edits and 1 months participation. Candidates who commence requests with fewer edits or less time served will have the request immediately closed by an administrator or other editor in good standing." I just can't see why we need to mention the SNOW bit as well. Pedro : Chat 08:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I support having a minimum of 1000 edits before posting an RfA. This wouldn't prevent anyone with a chance of passing from running. Also, setting a solid number will help newbies by preventing the inevitable flood of opposition and WP:SNOW closing. Chaz Beckett 17:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please. 1000 is fine. 300 is fine. 2000 is bit much, but still okay with me. In any case, I think it is good to be upfront with people. A nomination with ~500 will not pass, ever, period, and so there is no point in letting the trivial cases waste time and garner ill will. Dragons flight 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I used to think that stating a minimum edit requirement for adminship was bad, but I see that there is a de facto minimum edit count that is applied but not explained to candidates. While Carcharoth is absolutely correct that a person could conceivably warrant adminship with 500 edits, I think that it is very unlikely that even if that person warranted adminship that he would in fact be bestowed the tools. I think the transparency of stating the de facto minimum outweighs the harm to a potentially worthy candidate who has to continue editing without the tools a while longer than he might if the minimum were unstated. -- DS1953 talk 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion: A minimum of 1000 edits to *nominate* someone for adminship (including yourself). Anyone can go up for RFA, but if they're not sufficiently experienced, they need someone who is to vouch for them. -- Tango 15:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ooh. Look: " There are currently no requests for adminship" - when was the last time that happened? Carcharoth 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I nominated someone who is very helpful and very good. He declined. Darn! He would have had the RFA board all to himself! Archtransit 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
<--OK, but what happened to him? - Go od sh op ed 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha. The WP:BN/R is still stuck on thedemonhog all by herself. Speaking of which, the big hopes for November never materalized. I remember someone speculating that we'd get 70 admins at the rate during the huge green week (about two weeks ago). That was the only reason why I decided to run. And now I'm the 56th and last promotoin for November 2007. hbdragon88 04:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And just a few weeks ago there were over 20 RFAs at once. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I resigned my sysop tools on 11th November this year, for reasons which are explained in full detail on my userpage. The principal reason was that, during my first term at university, I simply did not have the time or mental energy to remain regularly active on Wikipedia (as evidenced by my sparse contributions over the last couple of months). I was also dissatisfied with many aspects of Wikipedia's power structure.
However, I have now returned from university and will be at home for the next six weeks (we have long holidays at Oxford) so I feel I now have the time to return to contributing as an administrator. I will be honest: since I still have a fairly busy real life, I will not be the most active administrator. But when I have the time and energy, I think my help in clearing backlogs (particularly CSDs and AfDs) might be useful. As regards my other reason for resigning, I am still unhappy with the undemocratic aspects of Wikipedia's governance, but whether or not I am serving as an administrator has little effect on that. I still believe in the project, and believe I can help it as an administrator.
As I believe in democracy and accountability, I promised that I would not return to adminship without an RfA. However, I know that many people dislike token "reconfirmation" RfAs and see them as a waste of time. I will therefore leave this post here for the next few days, and if no one objects to me regaining my admin tools, I will request that I be re-sysopped by a bureaucrat. If anyone has any objection whatsoever to me regaining the tools, then I will go through an RfA and let the community decide. Walton One 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The desire to get community feedback before resysopping seems to be a common trend ( Croat Canuck, Jaranda, Gurch, Majorly - just in 2007). If someone wants feedback before resysopping, I suggest that they ask on this page that if anyone has a problem or concern about their getting their tools back to post about it on their talk page. After a few days, they will know if there is any serious issue, and if none, they should go ahead and request the tools back at WP:BN. This is very close to what you have done Walton, and I commend you for following this non-dramatic manner of feedback, instead of rushing to start an RfA. Cheers, NoSeptember 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This thread appears to have turned into a sort of pseudo-RfA, which I suppose was inevitable. :-) Anyway, from the above, it appears that no one's raised any objections to me regaining my admin tools. One user (Kevin Murray) would prefer that I go through an RfA, but indicates that he will not personally oppose me. As such, I feel I now have a sufficient mandate to request my tools back from a bureaucrat. I'll leave this thread up for another day or so to give people time to voice any objections, but if there are none, I'll make a request at BN and provide a link to this thread.
In the interests of democracy and accountability, I will of course add myself to
CAT:AOR.
Walton
One 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: When you made that statement, was the trend of trustworthy former admins having unsuccessful reconfirmation RfAs because of editors making their points? Lara ❤ Love 13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to start an RFA reform discussion, but if RFA worked like the above section, we just might have less problems with it. Well, community opinion to resysop without going through the actual process currently constitutes a supermajority, and probably consensus. But, the word (if not spirit) of Walton's promise is creating an RfA page, having Wikipedians express opinions for seven days, etc. Eh. I would have no issues with him asking for adminship through the noticeboard. Gracenotes T § 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just ask for the tools back, Walton. You've got good work to do. It's not your fault some pointy people started more ridiculous drama to waste more time after you said you'd go through RfA if you decided to get your tools back. Circumstances have changed. It's not worth sacrificing your restored adminship (for yourself or Wikipedia) over a promise made before this inappropriate mess started. Lara ❤ Love 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does everything has to turn out so unnecesary complex and difficult here. If this was asked at WP:BN it would have been so simple.
Now we have this long discussion and a new RFA to look forward to. Garion96 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of "controversial". Have all of these "many aspects of Wikipedia's power structure" that Walton appeared to be so upset about all been fixed now? -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologise to everyone for inadvertently starting this wiki-drama, and the lengthy thread of discussion thereby generated. I don't want to waste any more of the community's time or complicate matters further, so I will only run for RfA if someone else wants to nominate me. If not, I'll remain a non-admin for the time being. Walton One 14:28, 4 December 2007 (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 105 | ← | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | → | Archive 115 |
Why is not considered more unacceptable/irritating for a recently promoted or failed candidate to compulsively spam the talk pages everyone who voted in the RfA? It almost seems as if candidates feel this behavior is expected of them. Does anyone actually like this practice?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no harm in this practice. If a candidate feels gratitude to those who supported him or her, there is no reason to be cross if he or she says so, in a location where people are guaranteed to see it. I know that I felt good about thanking the people who supported my own RfA, and dropping each of them a brief note saying so, some tailored to the specifics of their particular comments. With all the incivility and name-calling we have to deal with from time to time, I think it would be more than a little regrettable if we adopted a community norm against people saying thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's my two pennies, since Pedro is probably talking about me... unless lots of people don't thank him, which wouldn't surprise me. Let me first apologize if my thanks spam annoyed anyone. I was 110 in before The undertow notified me that it was discouraged. I'd gotten so many over the months, I thought it was expected. But I would like to note that I customized mine depending on the various votes of support to thank my supporters for precisely what they'd done, whether it be a simple support, a strong support, or either of those and a dash of defense of my character, etc. Also, there were some that I really wanted to give a special note to, and I felt it would be very discourteous to only send a pretty note to some but not other supporters. Plus, I like them. But I'm a girl... I like that pretty stuff. Now, as for my opposers, I dropped a line (not the pretty card) to those who had legitimate opposes. I thanked them for taking the time to really consider my candidacy and bring up legitimate concerns. I told them that I understood those concerns, had learned from those situations and looked forward to proving them wrong in their fears, honestly. I wasn't being sarcastic or rude about it. At least one appreciated it. I meant to get to the neutrals, but work came, then time had passed, and it just fell from the todo list. My apologies there. If anyone feels I overlooked them and would like a thank you, please drop a line on my talk page. I'll either give you the belated thanks with an apology, or explain why I didn't feel it appropriate to be fake and spam your page. As for you, Pedro: If you want your thanks, give me your email. A very special card, custom-made just for you has been waiting since before my RfA concluded. :) Lara ❤ Love 07:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was too dazed to thank anyone in any form the day the sysop bit fell on me. After a day or two I recovered but I think nobody will kill you if you don't thank them... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that RfA contributors should only vote their conscience and only support the nomination if they think it is good for Wikipedia. I will therefore not canvass any thank you messages on people's pages who voted for me, nor will it affect my attitude towards anyone who votes against me.
Back in my day *hobbles around on zimmer frame* (ok, April 2007), it was a more common practice than it is now, indeed it was more or less expected of a candidate. As I recall I only thanked my supporters (to save time, if nothing else). (As it was also HM the Queen's birthday, I added in a "Vivat Regina" as well. :-)) However, I agree it's a complete waste of time, and I wouldn't do it if I had an RfA now. Walton One 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There exist those topics of discussion that are not amenable to policy or guideline. This is one of them. There exist those topics of discussion that are not worth everyone writing a paragraph about. This is one of them. I can't quite believe how much pointless chat has been produced over something so irrelevant. It's as if in the absence of "RfA is broken (n+1 th nomination)" we have this instead. Splash - tk 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the practice is more noticeable at the moment as more admins are getting through at present, and if "the same ol' names" keep commenting at RfA, they'll get a lot of post. So the answer, obviously, is to stop commenting on RfAs, and then the spam will magically stop. (err...) Bencherlite Talk 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (who didn't spam his supporters (not that it would have taken long, and he had no opposers to thank anyway (grin!)) because he isn't great at pretty banner messages and it was far more fun to delete some real sp*m at CAT:CSD...)
Is this becoming more of an issue lately? I've not participated in RfA as of late but as far as I can tell this isn't a problem as much as it was back then. And anyway, someone who does not want to see RfA thanks messages posted on their talk page should simply say so on their talk page. That takes care of the problem right away. - Pilotguy contact tower 01:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(OK, maybe not that different but at least it breaks up the text, non?) While I will undoubtedly grow sick and weary of them, RfA thanks/notes perform a different function for me: They allow me to have a post-RfA contact with a new admin or someone who didn't achieve adminship. I don't know about anyone else, but I have no acquaintance with the vast majority of admins. There's, what, about 1500 admins now? The RfA process remains a type of good behaviour/best foot forward affair. How someone acknowledges their RfA success or failure speaks to me of their character and how they will act post-RfA. However personalized or impersonal such messages are, they express the candidate's vision of their future to some extent. Am I reading waa-a-ay too much into these often rote messages? Is this perhaps projection on my part? Sure, but it remains a point of contact between me and them. Like an election (and yes-i-know-it's-not-vote), people who expressed an opinion in an RfA are almost like constituents to the RfA candidate, responsible for shaping the issues discussed and the tenor of it. There's a reason why many of these thank yous include a phrase like "If I can do anything for you, please let me know." There's a feeling of special and specific obligation to those participants even though the participants are essentially representing the wider WP community.
Connected to that is the "community" of Wikipedia. Yes, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to be friends or buddies with everyone, but a collegial atmosphere does not grow out of purely mechanical contributions or interaction; it also requires some level of trust of each other's decisions and actions. This is a social aspect of WP and its importance in shaping community shouldn't be discounted. So, for the moment, I like RfA messages. All too soon, I will become jaded and indifferent to these artifacts of WP culture, desiring only to block vandals and delete pages through my superior familiarity with WP policy, wanting my talk page to be clear of excess clutter. But still... Cheers, Pigman what?/ trail 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"My God, guard my tongue from evil, and my lips from speaking deceitfully. To those who curse me, let my soul be silent; and let my soul be like dust to everyone."
I say these words in Hebrew three times every day as part of the standard Jewish prayer service. As I prepare to comment on recent developments, I say these words again.
First, I wish to thank Riana and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me, and I thank everyone who showed a tremendous degree of respect not normally offered to people who have committed crimes against Wikipedia. I also thank Deskana for putting the discussion to rest before it got out of hand.
Though I keep most of my feelings on this matter to myself, I share a few very important ideas with the community.
It should not be necessary to state this, but since some of the "oppose" voters cast suspicion on my current level of integrity, I must not allow such allegations to stand in silence. I was asked to prove that I am not currently vandalizing Wikipedia under alternate accounts and IP addresses, as I have admitted to doing in the past. It is impossible to prove that I am not vandalizing Wikipedia, just as it is impossible to prove that space aliens do not exist. Without complete information about the workings of the universe, we cannot definitively prove that space aliens do not exist. Similarly, without complete knowledge of how I spend my time, you cannot definitively prove that I do not vandalize Wikipedia.
As I stated on the RFA, I occasionally edit from my IP address without logging in. The IP address at my home is currently 71.174.224.76. In the last two months, I have not edited Wikipedia outside my home, and nobody else in my home has edited Wikipedia. You can convince yourself that this is my IP address by comparing the interwiki links on the Hebrew Wikipedia from this IP address to the corresponding English articles which I translated from Hebrew.
Originally I decided that I would never again run for adminship, but after careful consideration, I decided that "never" is too long. I do not know whether I will still be active on Wikipedia five years from now, and if I am still active, I probably will not want sysop access anyway.
Please do not offer to nominate me for adminship one or two years from now. I am not interested.
I have admitted what I did wrong. I have apologizing specifically to every editor and administrator who was involved in cleaning up the messes I made. In June I committed to follow the rules, and I have upheld that commitment. I disclosed all of this, providing links where relevant, in my opening comments at the RFA.
I hoped that it would convince people that I am on the right track. It didn't happen.
Accordingly, I will ask an administrator (privately, by email) to delete User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/RFA review and other user and user talk pages relating to the past.
A number of users, both before and during the RFA, raised concerns about my application of the snowball clause in closing XFDs before the five or seven day period of discussion has ended. Though I continue to defend my past decisions, I will not apply the snowball clause in the future.
It would be helpful if the community could clarify (1) when it is and is not appropriate to apply the snowball clause, and (2) whether non-administrators are on equal footing with administrators to apply the snowball clause in clear "keep" situtations. It's hard to follow a policy when the policy itself is unclear.
Some people mistakenly believe that Wikipedia already has all the articles it needs, so the remaining tasks are to maintain and improve the existing roster of articles. Actually, Wikipedia is still missing thousands of articles on highly notable topics.
I recently discovered that many of the towns and villages in Israel do not have articles on the English Wikipedia. I have translated about a dozen articles from the Hebrew Wikipedia about kibbutzim and moshavim in the Beit She'an Valley. I hope to translate articles about towns and villages in other regions of Israel. I am surprised that, after almost seven years of Wikipedia's existence, this has still not been done.
Undoubtedly the same lack of information exists for other countries where English is not the primary language. (See, for example, List of postal codes in Algeria). I challenge the community to create English articles for every incorporated city, town and village anywhere in the world within the next five years. Using my ability to translate from Hebrew (and, to a lesser extent, from other languages) to English, I will do whatever small part I can.
Best regards,
Shalom (
Hello •
Peace) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(*sigh*) -- I'm sorry to have to play the part of the old grumpy man here (regardless of the fact that I am in fact a relatively old man and am sometimes grumpy), but leaving a long "you missed out on a good thing, sweetie" letter on this talk page is really inappropriate. The statement: "I will not apply again for adminship via the RFA process for the next five years" is a horribly melodramatic plea for wikilove, especially when it's clear that this person is indeed "good admin material", but is perhaps a bit impatient to recieve the forgiveness he has clearly earned. Wikipedia is not group therapy, and it is not a drama group. You're a good, standup guy, Shalom, and you shouldn't feel the need to play games. Feel free to canvass me when you do another RfA in 6 months or so, but please try not to say things you don't mean. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Could a non-participant or bureaucrat close: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flaminglawyer & Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Finale Wiki Geek. They both seem to be heading towards snow. Thanks. Rudget. talk 16:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain how consensus can be two different percentages? RfA is traditionally 75%, and RfB is 90%, but how can that be? And why? RfA is basically a vote, which bureaucrats don't need any "judgement" to close, so why is it so much harder for admins to become one, when normal admins can close incredibly difficult AfDs which do need judgement? Sorry, I'm just curious. Thanks, Majorly ( talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. I am here to announce that the
Toolserver has now released a new edit counter on their 'stable server' which is a dedicated server for 'stable tools'. If you are interested, you can see it at
http://stable.ts.wikimedia.org/editcount. The syntax for the edit counts should be in the format of http://stable.ts.wikimedia.org/editcount/result?username=<USER>&projectname=enwiki_p
. —
E
talk
BAG 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Doesn't seem to be working now. I got an "internal error" when I tried to run an edit count on my account. Has this happened to others? Useight ( talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Kudos to DGG, who has asked great questions on some of the open RfAs. I particularly like the part of one question asking for the nominee's views on a policy problem currently under dispute, and the one asking if, in the nominee's opinion, we currently have xyz policy "exactly right". They're great ways to probe the minds of the nominees as well as to stimulate policy discussion among people who like to discuss policy. (I'd even like to answer the questions myself.) If my plaigiarism could be forgiven, I'd like to add variations of them to RfAs in the future. Daniel has also been offering some very thought-provoking questions lately.
At the same time, Scott5114 has been asked 11 optional questions (and one follow-up) in one day at RfA; getting one question "wrong" on an RfA is more than enough to sink a lot of nominations, and some of the questions involve in-depth scenarios. Are we expecting too much from some of the candidates - particularly in terms of time commitment to their own RfAs - now that the anon-creation issue has been put on the backburner? I say this while recognizing that the other nominations have only 2-5 optional questions, because it is quite possible that the prospects of such an analytical/time-consuming test have reduced the number of nominations again. Dekimasu よ! 08:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Only four open RFAs?! We've lulled! Neil ☎ 14:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
December was slow last year too - only 19 successful RfAs. That said, in December 2005, 69 people had successful RfAs (the record so far) so we can't say that December is always quiet... WjB scribe 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't part of the job of the most junior bureaucrat to drum up some new RfA candidates? :) NoSeptember 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on this discussion I created the above report for those who may find it useful. NoSeptember 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time to have a minimum number of edits required for editors to run for RfA. Here are some of my recent WP:SNOW closures and their number of edits:
I realize that we're hesitant to set a number to ward off people who edit just to up their numbers so they can run, but I don't think we need to set the threshold too terribly high, and there's literally no chance in hell for someone with a hunded or so edits to become an admin (you know it, I know it, we all know it). I think 1,000 edits is a nice round (and reasonable) number (incidentally, that's also roughly my personal threshold for snow-closures). I have faith that the community can recognize simple gaming of the system, and there's no guarantee that just because someone has 1k edits they'll become an admin. I'm just looking to weed out folk that think they have a shot, only to shot down with varying degrees of kindness over the process.
It should be noted that several other projects have minimum requirements. Some examples:
I think trying to tie a chronological requirement to RfA candidacy is going to be an uphill battle, so I'm suggesting our threshold be based on just a bare minimum of edits performed (again, just meeting that requirement is no guarantee for success; someone with 1,001 edits could very easily be seeing a "sorry, but..." message from a 'crat a week after). Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Convinced on the need, not convinced on the rationale of mentioning snow. WP:SNOW is not for the purpose of measuring edit count alone after all. Imagine this; A candidate with 3,000 edits but who was 24hr blocked for a viscous attack during an edit war the week before they launch an RfA. The RfA gets to 1/20/0 in 24 hours. Now that's a SNOW close as the process has no chance of succeding. If we're going to set a minimum bar to people running we don't need to mention SNOW. We have a straight forward policy, clearly stated in the various templates (like meta does) that says "The minimum standard required to request adminship is 1,000 edits and 1 months participation. Candidates who commence requests with fewer edits or less time served will have the request immediately closed by an administrator or other editor in good standing." I just can't see why we need to mention the SNOW bit as well. Pedro : Chat 08:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I support having a minimum of 1000 edits before posting an RfA. This wouldn't prevent anyone with a chance of passing from running. Also, setting a solid number will help newbies by preventing the inevitable flood of opposition and WP:SNOW closing. Chaz Beckett 17:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please. 1000 is fine. 300 is fine. 2000 is bit much, but still okay with me. In any case, I think it is good to be upfront with people. A nomination with ~500 will not pass, ever, period, and so there is no point in letting the trivial cases waste time and garner ill will. Dragons flight 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I used to think that stating a minimum edit requirement for adminship was bad, but I see that there is a de facto minimum edit count that is applied but not explained to candidates. While Carcharoth is absolutely correct that a person could conceivably warrant adminship with 500 edits, I think that it is very unlikely that even if that person warranted adminship that he would in fact be bestowed the tools. I think the transparency of stating the de facto minimum outweighs the harm to a potentially worthy candidate who has to continue editing without the tools a while longer than he might if the minimum were unstated. -- DS1953 talk 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion: A minimum of 1000 edits to *nominate* someone for adminship (including yourself). Anyone can go up for RFA, but if they're not sufficiently experienced, they need someone who is to vouch for them. -- Tango 15:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ooh. Look: " There are currently no requests for adminship" - when was the last time that happened? Carcharoth 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I nominated someone who is very helpful and very good. He declined. Darn! He would have had the RFA board all to himself! Archtransit 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
<--OK, but what happened to him? - Go od sh op ed 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha. The WP:BN/R is still stuck on thedemonhog all by herself. Speaking of which, the big hopes for November never materalized. I remember someone speculating that we'd get 70 admins at the rate during the huge green week (about two weeks ago). That was the only reason why I decided to run. And now I'm the 56th and last promotoin for November 2007. hbdragon88 04:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And just a few weeks ago there were over 20 RFAs at once. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I resigned my sysop tools on 11th November this year, for reasons which are explained in full detail on my userpage. The principal reason was that, during my first term at university, I simply did not have the time or mental energy to remain regularly active on Wikipedia (as evidenced by my sparse contributions over the last couple of months). I was also dissatisfied with many aspects of Wikipedia's power structure.
However, I have now returned from university and will be at home for the next six weeks (we have long holidays at Oxford) so I feel I now have the time to return to contributing as an administrator. I will be honest: since I still have a fairly busy real life, I will not be the most active administrator. But when I have the time and energy, I think my help in clearing backlogs (particularly CSDs and AfDs) might be useful. As regards my other reason for resigning, I am still unhappy with the undemocratic aspects of Wikipedia's governance, but whether or not I am serving as an administrator has little effect on that. I still believe in the project, and believe I can help it as an administrator.
As I believe in democracy and accountability, I promised that I would not return to adminship without an RfA. However, I know that many people dislike token "reconfirmation" RfAs and see them as a waste of time. I will therefore leave this post here for the next few days, and if no one objects to me regaining my admin tools, I will request that I be re-sysopped by a bureaucrat. If anyone has any objection whatsoever to me regaining the tools, then I will go through an RfA and let the community decide. Walton One 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The desire to get community feedback before resysopping seems to be a common trend ( Croat Canuck, Jaranda, Gurch, Majorly - just in 2007). If someone wants feedback before resysopping, I suggest that they ask on this page that if anyone has a problem or concern about their getting their tools back to post about it on their talk page. After a few days, they will know if there is any serious issue, and if none, they should go ahead and request the tools back at WP:BN. This is very close to what you have done Walton, and I commend you for following this non-dramatic manner of feedback, instead of rushing to start an RfA. Cheers, NoSeptember 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This thread appears to have turned into a sort of pseudo-RfA, which I suppose was inevitable. :-) Anyway, from the above, it appears that no one's raised any objections to me regaining my admin tools. One user (Kevin Murray) would prefer that I go through an RfA, but indicates that he will not personally oppose me. As such, I feel I now have a sufficient mandate to request my tools back from a bureaucrat. I'll leave this thread up for another day or so to give people time to voice any objections, but if there are none, I'll make a request at BN and provide a link to this thread.
In the interests of democracy and accountability, I will of course add myself to
CAT:AOR.
Walton
One 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: When you made that statement, was the trend of trustworthy former admins having unsuccessful reconfirmation RfAs because of editors making their points? Lara ❤ Love 13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to start an RFA reform discussion, but if RFA worked like the above section, we just might have less problems with it. Well, community opinion to resysop without going through the actual process currently constitutes a supermajority, and probably consensus. But, the word (if not spirit) of Walton's promise is creating an RfA page, having Wikipedians express opinions for seven days, etc. Eh. I would have no issues with him asking for adminship through the noticeboard. Gracenotes T § 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just ask for the tools back, Walton. You've got good work to do. It's not your fault some pointy people started more ridiculous drama to waste more time after you said you'd go through RfA if you decided to get your tools back. Circumstances have changed. It's not worth sacrificing your restored adminship (for yourself or Wikipedia) over a promise made before this inappropriate mess started. Lara ❤ Love 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does everything has to turn out so unnecesary complex and difficult here. If this was asked at WP:BN it would have been so simple.
Now we have this long discussion and a new RFA to look forward to. Garion96 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of "controversial". Have all of these "many aspects of Wikipedia's power structure" that Walton appeared to be so upset about all been fixed now? -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologise to everyone for inadvertently starting this wiki-drama, and the lengthy thread of discussion thereby generated. I don't want to waste any more of the community's time or complicate matters further, so I will only run for RfA if someone else wants to nominate me. If not, I'll remain a non-admin for the time being. Walton One 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)