RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 23:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC).—cyberbot I NotifyOnline

Latest RfXs update

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N
Sarahj2107	RfA	Successful	5 December 2014	102	0	0
Czar	RfA	Successful	29 November 2014	97	3	2
Samwalton9	RfA	Successful	28 November 2014	101	0	2
Northamerica10002	RfA	Successful	21 November 2014	108	38	17
Thomas.W	RfA	Withdrawn	21 November 2014	54	28	4
I JethroBT	RfA	Successful	16 November 2014	156	0	3
Jackmcbarn	RfA	Successful	5 November 2014	137	25	3

Current time: 17:13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Purge this page

Archives
2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 Most recent 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
Edit this box

Problem on RfA project page[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the little box/widget/whatever on the right side of the RfA page that lists all current RfAs is empty? (In reality, there are two ongoing ones.) --Biblioworm 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And before it went empty, it hadn't updated the count for several days. Who ya gonna call? --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report, which is updated by Cyberbot I (talk · contribs), which is operated by Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs). Have you informed the bot operator? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is maintained by a bot, Cyberbot I. The bot is maintained by cyberpower678, who appears to be on a wikibreak. -- GB fan 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's functioning now, but it was empty just a few minutes ago. It also said that there hadn't been any RfXs since 00:00, 25 November, 2014. --Biblioworm 16:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

On second glance, however, it's still not updating the count. Now we'll have to find a way to contact someone on an indefinite wikiBreak... --Biblioworm 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been discretely active this week. I'll see what's going on.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

RfAs created for test purposes[edit]

Do we have a policy on RfAs created for test purposes? I've found Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benfxmth, which the eponymous user has been working on for just over a week. If submitted as a formal RfA, it'll surely be WP:NOTNOW closed (and not just because of it's demonstrably untrue claim of 3600 edits in a period of 3 years, both figures being approximately 30 times the true values of 112 edits in 38 days); so should it be left, or WP:G2ed? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I would just leave it. As is, it's not harming anyting. If the user makes it live, it will almost certainly be closed per NOTNOW after a few opposes. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd contact the user, inform them of their chances of success and point them to relevant areas (i.e. not now and tag it. This might make it less harsh on the user, which we all would rather have. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We should definitely try to stop this RfA from being opened, as the user was blocked for vandalism just 10 days ago. It will probably be a rather brutal experience. --Biblioworm 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've left a (hopefully) friendly note on the user's talk page. --Biblioworm 18:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say let it go per WP:BITE. If this user were to go through RfA it would surely be worse, except that it would surely be closed very quickly. Seems a moot point now anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with in a manner appropriate for the user's editing history. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, Kudpung, but that block seems a little harsh. "(Disruptive editing: in particular wasting community time by creating fake RfA)" - actually they didn't waste any community time, because they never submitted the RfA. Redrose just happened to notice that they were creating it, and brought it up here. The trend in discussion here seemed to be: warn them away from RfA and let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see that another admin has confirmed the block, so I am mistaken. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused - the RfA was never submitted. Is that really disruption per se? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the block seems a bit harsh, but I'm not going to waste much time defending someone who creates an RfA with inaccurate claims. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• The user is WP:NOTHERE with already a string of recent blocks to their name. They waste users' time because their antics are on peoples' watchlists, and an admin has to intervene to do all the research (which the commenters here evidently have not). Any more complaints, or have y'all got time to run for adminship? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not complaining @Kudpung: nor am I saying you've done the wrong thing. I didn't consider the RfA to actually be disruptive and yes, I have done done some research on the user. I see that they have some good contributions and that they've created an RfA but haven't submitted it. Granted, it'd be better suited in their namespace but it just seemed a little premature. I tend to be a lot more lenient than most but that's perhaps just my nature. In any sense, the TL;DR is that I wasn't assuming bad faith on your part and I did do my due diligence. Time will tell if the user wants to come back for the right reasons or not as you've stated. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just to recap (for those who didn’t do any research, or who may not have been aroundon Wikipedia for very long):

1. User has been blocked four times now by four different admins in just over a month since registering: 24 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 60 hours.
2. Block appeal declined by a fifth admin.
3. The current block, 60 hours, is not excessive; probably indef for CIR may even have been appropriate at this stage.
4. The RfA was clearly not a test edit. It was made ostensibly in open defiance of a proposal at the VP.
5. The fake RfA in its most recent cast before deletion was a disruptive piece of work if not actually vandalism.
6. User has still only made a total of 118 edits (mainspace 65), most of which were unnecessary or unhelpful.

The complaints comments about this block are typical of the everyday mudslinging that active admins have to put up with, which after the RfA process itself, is the next main reason why users of the right calibre are reluctant to be admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume "who may not have been aroundon Wikipedia for very long" is a reference to me. Well, what I said is that 'the block seems a bit harsh, but I'm not going to waste much time defending someone who creates an RfA with inaccurate claims.' If that qualifies as mudslinging, I guess everything is mudslinging. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To address the original, general question of "Do we have a policy on RfAs created for test purposes?", I believe the answer is no; however, from the discussion above (I can't see the actual page anymore, obviously), it doesn't seem like a "test RfA", as Kudpung says. In any case, I don't think that there's any restrictions on having an incomplete RfA in someone's userspace, though I feel that if it isn't intended for submission it should be clearly marked as such (of course I only say that because I did). ansh666 02:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ansh666: It wasn't in userspace... it was a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and so likely to be picked up by templates, scripts and bots. The page was clearly created by using {{subst:RfA}} so I presume that they were going through WP:RFA/NOM#To nominate yourself, and had carried out instructions 2 through 6 inclusive, but had ignored instruction 1.

The nom statement was

Benfxmth is one of the users that makes 3600 edits in a period of 3 years.

Answers to the 3 standard qs were:

1. Immediate administrative work I perform in the areas of protection.
2. I favor adding new content. I Have created 9 pages.
3. I have had disagreements at times regarding editing, but they have occurred relatively infrequently over the last one month, and are not what I would term as conflict per the definition of the word. Regular contributors to Wikipedia will typically experience some editing disagreements. I don't become stressful when disagreement occurs,

and a fourth q had been added

4. Please provide diffs of some speedy-deletion tagging.

A: I have tagged 10 pages for speedy-deletion.

If I were to create a fake question, I would at least make sure that the answer matched it - where are those diffs that he asked himself for? All but one may be produced by any non-admin - excluding two self-reverts, the user has in fact marked five pages for speedy deletion, and always using WP:CSD#A7, regardless of namespace or what was actually on the page. Of these, three were declined; one (User:Benfxmth, their own user page, which was blank at the time) was deleted under G7, which was valid, although it had been marked {{speedy deletion-significance}}; and one (User talk:75.108.76.68, which was also marked {{speedy deletion-significance}}) was actually deleted even though A7 doesn't apply to pages outside mainspace (I later undeleted it partly because of the inapplicable criterion, but also it contained valid comments to 75.108.76.68 from a user who wasn't Benfxmth).

But worst of all, they had removed the comment at the top that includes "WHEN CLOSING THIS RFA, REPLACE THIS PART" and replaced it with the text "Note:As has been noted, this RfA falls within the discretionary range. Upon careful review of the discussion I find sufficient consensus to promote Benfxmth to become administrator." which is blatant falsification.

This page might have belonged in userspace, but I don't think that it should have been left as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship indefinitely. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, now I see that, not sure how I didn't before. If it was clearly not intended for submission, it probably should have been moved to userspace, but seeing it now I don't think that this was, and agree that it should have been deleted. Maybe we should have something on WP:RfA or another related page about this - "Don't create an RfA which you do not intend to submit" or something?

Side note: I didn't get pinged by that comment, I think because you didn't sign at the end of the line that the {{replyto}} was on. Echo is silly. ansh666 06:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Testing the waters" for three changes to RfA[edit]

I've been thinking about three changes to RfA that might make the admin system a bit better. However, I thought it would be better to post here first and test the general opinion before going for the full-blown RfC route. Here are the ideas:

1. Change RfAs to have two phases. The first phase would be for questioning, and the second phase would be for voting. Each phase would be seven days, thus extending a single RfA to last two weeks. Doing this would allow !voters to get a better picture of the candidate, as the candidate would have had time to give thought out and detailed answers to the questions. (This is sort of how the ArbCom elections work.) With the current system, candidates are rushing to answer the questions while the voting is going on. It can also get pretty messy, as voters will begin in one section, and then they'll strike their vote and move to the opposite section "per the candidates answer to question X". This change would make RfAs less stressful for the candidates and more organized for the !voters.
2. Implement !voter prerequisites. As of now, completely new users are allowed to !vote on RfAs, and this should not be. If a user registers, and then his first edit is !voting on an RfA, you know that it's a SPA and up to no good. This could be avoided by setting a reasonable but somewhat lax requirement, such as at two weeks experience and 50 edits. This would allow us to see whether or not the user is acting in good faith; if it's not, it will probably be blocked before it reaches the necessary !voting requirements.
3. Now, this is the largest change. I propose that we implement "probationary adminship" for candidates who get less support. If you get 75% or more support, you become a full admin, and candidates who get only 50-74% support become "probationary admins" for a period of three months. Probationary admins would be under tighter restrictions, and a 'crat could desysop at their discretion if they feel that the user is repeatedly showing poor judgement. If no major issues arise during the trial period, the user will become a full admin, and can no longer be desysopped at the discretion of a single 'crat. This system would allow potentially good admins to demonstrate that they can be trusted with the tools, without the community fearing that the candidate will be "un-desysoppable" (I made that word up).

These ideas can be modified as issues and suggestions arise. Thanks for your input. --Biblioworm 19:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, idea 3 has been repeatedly rejected in the past, see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures. And for the rest of the changes, you'll need an awful lot of consensus before they are implemented. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

With the way things are now, perhaps it's time to give some of those perennial proposals another chance. --Biblioworm 21:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

1 and 2 seem good, but 3 is unlikely to pass through an RfC. What about administrator "mentors" for admins that get only 50-74% support? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment #2 seems resonable and I think would garner sufficient support to pass an RfC. #3 is dead on arrival as a proposal for reasons already mentioned. And bluntly anyone who can't muster 70% support in an RfA should not get the tools. Period. #1 is more problematic. I think it has some merit, but my big hangup is that RfA is already a week of intense stress for candidates. I am loathe to extend that stress unnecessarily. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• As I recall, #1 was tried some time ago, and it failed miserably. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2, preceded by this discussion. LittleMountain5 00:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that we get in infinite cycles of:
  • Agreeing that we need RfA reform
  • Bringing up new proposals
  • Rejecting the proposals
• If nothing comes out of all this discussion within a few months, I might consider quitting all the reform nonsense and getting back to machine-gunning vandals. --Biblioworm 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • THAT is a quote you can expect to see if you ever run for RFA: "I might consider quitting all the reform nonsense and getting back to machine-gunning vandals." Dennis - 2¢ 00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • True, but I'm not sure that I'll ever run. I might just decide to enjoy my wikiCareer and do things that I will enjoy and get appreciated for, rather than doing thankless admin tasks. :) --Biblioworm 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • ...or, if I ever do run, it won't be until the community stops opposing people as the result of a single diff. --Biblioworm 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I support a voter suffrage rule, so long as: 1) ANYONE can pose questions, 2) The bar is kept low, as proposed. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly against voter suffrage Really? We ditch WP:AGF and just automatically assume bad faith now until a person has edited for some arbitrary amount of time/edits? REALLY? We elect bureaucrats to determine consensus, and now we're going to presume they're incapable of figuring out which editors are up to no good? Really?? Can anyone show ANY rfa that was derailed by new editors 'up to no good'? Come on. Don't add bureaucracy when none is needed. This project was started based on the phenomenally stupid idea that people could be trusted. Oddly, ten plus years on, we seem to have not failed. Maybe it's because assuming good faith IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING???? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: Calm down. I'm not wild about No. 2, but it's needed IMO. As a user who strongly believes in AGF and fights for it, users shouldn't start out voting on RfAs. When I first came here in Dec 2012, I knew enough about WP to avoid trouble, I was careful about things, but I didn't think about getting involved in RfAs (I was already nominating articles for CSDs within my first month here, even), and I doubt many new users would. I find the fact that people accuse new editors that vote on RfAs of being a sock more disturbing than this proposed rule. At Commons, (I know, what happens there shouldn't be used as an example for what should happen here) they have something similar to this for users voting on pictures to promote to FP status. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I changed "No. 1" to "No. 2", because that seems to make sense. ansh666 04:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's not try to fix problems that don't exist: I can recall only one RfA in the last several years where an IP had any significant impact on the outcome of an RfA. IMO, the conduct of registered users -- in some cases, long-time editors -- has been far more problematic in intentionally (and sometimes unfairly) torpedoing RfAs. Where inexperience has sometimes manifested undue influence in RfAs is more often than not found in the pile-on effects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comments (1)The first idea has some merit, but making an RfA last two weeks would make it even more stressful. A less drastic change might be to keep the length at seven days, with questions only for the first two days. Questions could continue as is currently done, but potential voters would see the answers to a number of user questions before voting. (2) The second suggested change isn't really needed, because the RfA is not a strict vote count. The person who closes the RfA is supposed to weigh the arguments and determine the level of community support. Also, even a brand new account may represent an experienced IP editor. (3) Suggestion number three just opens up another can of worms. If ever the community decided that they wanted a probationary period, which is unlikely to happen, it should be for all new admins and not by strict percentages. It would be better to have a more defined process for removing adminship which would apply to all. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(1) Sometimes it's useful to ask a question to help a candidate deal with an issue that has been raised in the opposes, if the candidate is avoiding threaded discussion in the oppose section to avoid seeming to badger. Restricting questions to the first 2 days makes this more difficult, and I don't see what is gained. (2) RfA is somewhat a vote count, even if not a strict one. The aim of this one is to prevent some trolling, isn't it? Trolling, as we've seen recently, can generate quite a lot of drama at RfA. (3) Yes. --Stfg (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that questioning should continue throughout the whole RFA. I tried to make this clear by writing "questions could continue", but I guess it wasn't clear enough. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Anne Delong about the length of RfA. A week is long enough, but I suggest four or even more days for discussion and the balance for voting. The discussion is more important than the voting, really. I would not be opposed to (2), or just permanently semiprotecting RfA so only autoconfirmed accounts can participate - that would exclude some prolific IPs but overall it's a net positive. On (3), why don't we just make all successful RfAs for promotion to a probationary status? Mentoring new admins is a good idea. I like what's happening over at SPI with the clerk training program and I'd like to see it adapted to RfA. Ivanvector (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Maybe if we gain additional support for a mentorship program, we can start something, and go to an RfC. I've thought for a while that admin mentorship would be good. It must be hard for a user to go right in to the responsibility of being an admin. On a different note, I agree with Anne that two weeks might be too much for a candidate. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am concerned that leaving only three days for voting may not be fair, since many people are busy in daily life and can't log in every day. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. For anyone who is wondering, I am not ignoring the feedback here. I am noting all of it, and I also agree with most things that are being said. I'm interested in getting more opinions from other members of the community. --Biblioworm 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there should be a separation between the question and !voting process. Many of the most relevant questions are because of concerns or followup to some of the issues brought forth during the !voting process and most notably the opposes. A two consecutive week RFA period would be unreasonable for candidates. You barely get any sleep and that's even if your RFA is going well. I think there's probably more discussion to be had with probationary periods but for all new admins. Mkdw^talk 18:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As others have said above, prolonging an already agonising wait for the outcome of an RfA places further unnecessary stress on candidates, which is to be avoided. As an alternative to the probation suggestion, it might be a better idea to exclude new admins from certain admin activities for a fixed period—this should also fix criticism of candidate weaknesses in particular areas. The restriction would be honour-based so that no changes are needed to the current process of granting rights.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Philg88 That is an interesting angle. Can you expand a bit? Irondome (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My immediate thinking is that there are two ways that a restriction on activities might work. a) Fixed: for example no blocks or deletions for a set period or b: Flexible: All activities allowed by default but specific areas restricted for an agreed time based on valid concerns raised at an RfA. The problem with the latter is who is going to decide what's valid and what isn't.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of being an admin if you are not allowed to use all the tools in your kit? New admins will never learn how to use all their tools unless they're allowed to. —Biblioworm 20:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the correct and appropriate usage of them that can be the issue. A good admin uses their "tools" wisely. Often sparingly. The best tools are wisdom and some life experience, and you don't get issued with them post RfA. Often the !voters don't have the innate "toolkit" either, which just compounds the problem. Irondome (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst I don't have a huge amount of experience at WP:RFA I thought I might add to this.

Change RfAs to have two phases. The first phase would be for questioning, and the second phase would be for voting. - That was tried once, a few years back. It didn't sit well with the community and I doubt it will again. Why prolong a request? Questions can be asked during the RFA

Implement !voter prerequisites.. No - SPA's get caught easily, and this is simply a layer of bureaucracy. Whose to say someone with 100 edits might not have something rather insightful add to the discussion? And it goes against almost every egalitarian principle on WP.

Probationary adminship. Unworkable - 'crats have no authority to desysop beyond very limited circumstances - so out of their mandate (I suspect the OP does not understand the role of a WP:CRAT). Who defines "poor judgment" anyway?

A good faith set of ideas that are, when thought through, not actually useful. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

On the whole I agree with User:Pedro in their reasoning. As I have said before, I think RfA in its present form is the best we can get at the moment. It is an evolutionary change in the whole community, in reading up the history of the debates and all the extensive studies that the community itself has carried out so that behaviours are modified. That is needed and will happen.Irondome (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A doable, and immediate improvement to the RfA thingy would be to add a witty but insightful essay into recommended reading for !voters and candidates. If it doesnt exist in some form at the moment it should be written. Something like WP:The shitty lot of the Administrator. It would give a perhaps understated view on adminship. Every RfA is not a "promotion". Its 3 years in HMP Wandsworth. It would be a reality check. I think any admin candidate should ask themselves, is getting the mop a promotion or a self inflicted punishment for the good of the community? I think the"promotion" camp both !voter and candidate, if it exists, may be part of the problem.If !voters and candidates approached any RfA as a human sacrifice on the alter of WP:Sense of duty, things may change for the better. Irondome (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"(I suspect the OP does not understand the role of a WP:CRAT)" - I perfectly understand the current role of a bureaucrat, having read the WP:CRAT page multiple times. Just because I'm proposing changes to the current system does not mean that I misunderstand it. --Biblioworm 13:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: To answer a couple of Hammersoft's arguments uptopic, first off, WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact. We all ought to assume good faith, but AGF doesn't impose the obligation to ignore bad faith. Your assertion that everything is hunkydory is nonsense: have you taken the trouble to look at the numbers and realize that the number of RfAs has decreased tenfold in just a few years?

  Secondly, as to the notion that bureaucrats exercise discretion over the process: nonsense twice. Looking over the last three years of RfA, every single candidate hitting 75% was passed. Every single candidate who failed to get at least 73% failed. Only four turned up in the "discretionary" band between, two of whom were passed and two rejected. This is absolutely, and always has been (the last time I checked was in 2008, when in the previous year every one of the 331 candidates who hit 75% and didn't withdraw were passed, and none of the several hundred who didn't make 75% were) a pure head count. There has never been, in the whole history of the process, a situation where a bureaucrat has said "Look, she only got 55%, but the hobby horse the Oppose voters rode was bullshit, so she gets the mop anyway" ... and there never will be. Ravenswing 23:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but if I remember rightly, every one of the reform suggestions in this thread has been tried several times and are now WP:PEREN. The turnout at RfA has significantly increased with 100+ support no longer a rarity. But so has the number of unsuccessful RfA with relatively high turnout of supporters. What we are getting is a community that is now more concerned and more critical of the way we elect our admins and who we elect. @Anne Delong:, @Ymblanter:, @HalfGig: Snottywong's tool is working perfectly. Born out of WP:RFA2011 where he worked tirelessly to provide dozens of tables and charts in analysis of voters and their patterns, it is indispensable when discussing users who participate at RfA.

Today, the tool still clearly demonstrates that among the regular voters, some do indeed appear to generally vote 'oppose' (or only vote when they are fairly confident the RfA will fail). Others who have also voted on more than 200 RfA have a more balanced distribution of their support, oppose, and neutral votes, and what is important is that the vast majority of their votes matched the result whether they voted early or not, or suppport, oppose, or neutral. Early voters are not likely to be swayed by the opinions of other voters, but if they express themselves objectively and well, they can significantly influence the result as can be evidenced by the unresearched pile-ons they precipitate. On the other hand, voters in the 'oppose' section who do not express themselves so nicely often set the tone of the RfA which leads to a pile-on of PA, incivility and other disingenuous votes and comments, thus creating the very drama that puts people off from running.

RfA is certainly less broken than it was in 2011, but as consensus can change, I still see myself sometimes supporting suggestions for changes even if deep down I'm fairly sure they will not gain traction. Give the PERENS a new shot? -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Snottywong's Adminscore tool[edit]

Anyone know why Snottywong's adminscore tool hasn't been working and if it can be fixed? No matter which non-admin user name I put in, I get a "504 Gateway Time-out" message. If I put in an admin name it says the user is already an admin (which makes sense). I think the tool is useful but it's not perfect. I have not tried to use it since early this year and back then it worked. HalfGig talk 12:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

When I tried to use the "Edit count" tools last week, I received an error message saying that there were issues after database maintenance, and that some Wikis might not work. Maybe the same thing is affecting this tool? It may not be a software issue, but a problem with accessing the necessary data. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe User:JackPotte is maintaining that tool now. The error is probably a result of some change that was made on the WMF Labs servers. That's one of the reasons that I couldn't be bothered to continue maintaining the tools myself; things keep changing that break the tools. Usually, once you've developed a tool and worked out all of the bugs, then you can sit back and relax and just let the tool run. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 16:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done The server performances has evolved since my last tests. Apparently we can't get the account age in a few seconds anymore. So on the 11 wanted criteria, it remains only four ones to get a result in a decent time.

That's why I had asked for some help by merging these scripts into Xtools. JackPotte (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@JackPotte: Another thing, the tool says that the maximum score is 1000, and that over 500 is good, but it doesn't look like it's even possible to reach even 500. Would you mind correcting that? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that JackPotte. @ Kudpung, see, it really was broken ;-) HalfGig talk 13:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

JackPotte, the info returned is vastly reduced from early this year. What happened? HalfGig talk 13:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just tried it on my username - it still returns only four parameters and thus the "score" is very low. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I thought we were discussing another tool. My bad. Nothing alters the fact that no tools work as well on labs as they used to on the ToolServer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. We were sold another bill of goods by the WMF. I believe JackPotte explained it above: the tool can no longer get the necessary info for 7 of the 11 criteria within the time available, so it was timing out and has now been restricted to the available tasks. I at any rate have been seeing the same thing on clicking the "Edit count" link at the bottom of contributions pages - it was a thing of beauty for a while, but the WMF keeps making changes that break it and now it hardly ever works. At least one recent RfA had a note to that effect. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the edit counters is the most disappointing of all. Rather than just port the main one to labs, the individual who took on the migration in good faith obviously bit off more than he could chew, unilaterally deciding to change the look of the whole thing as well, and when the complaints started he retired with some excuse that he is too busy at school. Kinda figures. Perhaps we should leave serious programming to the grown-ups after all. The edit counter is now all but totally unuseable and takes up to 10 minutes to load (if in fact it does). He can't really be blamed though because the whole Labs project is typical of the WMF boldly undertaking something and leaving the volunteers to clean up the mess. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘+1 to that, Kudpung. But will the Admin score tool be forever unable to access the rest of the criteria, or can it be fixed? That discussion of Jack's tp that was linked said something about xtools, I don't know if that has any significance. (Obviously, I have no idea how these tools work) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Czar RfA formatting error[edit]

EuroCarGT kindly informed me that the archiving template I used for Czar's request for adminship did not reach the bottom of the page due to the collapse template used for the sixth question. The trouble is, I'm not sure how to fix it. Could somebody who does possess the know-how fix it, please? Thanks in advance. Acalamari 13:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - NQ (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of templates will break if used inside a list. Such templates include {{collapse top}} {{documentation}} {{edit protected}} {{navbox}} {{redr}} and {{reflist-talk}}. Most of them involve HTML block structures like <div>...</div> or <table>...</table> which although permitted inside HTML lists, get messed with on their way from the wiki markup to your browser. The breakage might be a misdisplay of the template itself, or there may be a problem further down the page, such as a box ending early, as in this case. I'm using the term "list" in the broad sense: any line that begins with a colon, asterisk or hash is part of a list, so look for any colons used for indenting a block-type template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, NQ for fixing the formatting and thank you, Redrose64, for the tips. Acalamari 20:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Statute of limitations[edit]

I propose a statue of limitations for one year on any candidate's actions. If anyone presents some action taken by the candidate more than one year ago, it should immediately be struck from the record and not considered in closing, or ideally, voting. This recognizes that a candidate that wasn't good in the past might be a better person now, and would make RfA discussions much more civil with crap not being dredged up from the distant past. Whether this should be one year, or something longer of more recent, of course, is something for discussion, and even so, exceptions should be permitted on a case-by-case basis, such as an editor that hasn't recently been very active. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A hard time threshold sounds unwise, to me. Surely, whether how and on what schedule an individual might change depends on the individual. When judging someone's character, people ought to be free to exercise their judgement about how to exercise their judgement. --Pi zero (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, what brings this up is largely Jack McBarn's, who had to deal with a whole bunch of people raising a stink about how he edited as an IP is 2006 or something like that. This type of thing is what scares people from RfA. While Jack is a specific example, as a matter of general principle, this type of stale stuff should be kept out of these. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure what definite time we should set, we definitely need a way to keep !voters from dragging up diffs from many months or years before. Some candidates may even hear things like: "Oppose. When you were a newb, you made this terrible mistake, and I can't support people who have done that." Of course, some new Wikipedians learn very quickly, and are most unlikely to make the same mistake again. In any case, I've been drawing up some new proposals. In fact, I'm thinking of a very radical proposal that would eliminate "Opposes" completely. There would be admin elections at set times of the year, and the ones who get the most support !votes become admins. However, there would be a "Discussion" section, where people could discuss the candidate and any concerns they may have. Doing something like this would really take a good deal of the toxicity out of the process. --Biblioworm 01:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I might support a rule restricting users from citing issues 2+ years old, but 1+ years seems a little strict. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose any set rule. It all depends on the severity of the "crime." If somebody went completely berserk 366 days ago, it is relevant. You really cannot wiki-legislate something like this. It is common sense that people evaluating the RfA need to be the judge of each case on its own merits. We have too many rules and bureaucracy already and do not need more, like calling "foul" because somebody brought out some skeleton from the closet, no matter how dusty. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I do not share your confidence in the judgemental skills of some of the !voting pool frankly. As to calling foul to dusty skeletons, sometimes the !voter bringing them should get severely boomeranged. It entirely depends on the motivations of the exhumation, if you get me. Irondome (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I proposed a similar idea amongst some other suggestions a while back I seem to recall. I cant remember its fate or my exact words. Cant even remember the thread now. I would support an "unreasonable period" in any wording on this. The problem is quantifying it in a specific time period. Let the community chew on the "reasonable" bone. It provides an entree to the idea which may be more acceptable for a more powerful discussion. It brings up the idea above, that a newbie error made 6 years ago should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Maybe then the community can decide on an actual time limit definition based on this very strong weakness in RfA Irondome (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Actions are a very broad class, why would we want to end up with only this:

Support - Thought they were an admin already, has been active in FA's, AFD's and vandal fighting for 5 years the last year. ~~~~

— xaosflux ^Talk 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Good point. OPs idea could be reworded very effectively. Irondome (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not always bad to bring up past problems, but it's better done in the form of questions, so that the candidate can then demonstrate how that problem no longer applies, or what he/she learned from it. A compromise would be that problems dating back past a certain time couldn't be used as decline reasons until after the candidate is asked about them and has had a chance to reply. That should cut down on pile-ons. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• That has merit. Irondome (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, raising a concern is not the same as being uncivil. This proposal approaches critical levels of silliness. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am with Juliancolton on this one. I cannot support any sort of "statute of limitations" on what opposes can be based on. First, RfA is ultimately about about trust and you cannot legislate trust by placing artificial restrictions of this kind; ultimately the issue of trust is up to the judgement of individual editors and RfA participants must be allowed to exercise their own judgement regarding whether they trust a particular candidate. This fundamental principle is much more important than preventing some unreasonable opposes. If an oppose !vote is based on a truly weak rationale (such as a minor transgression that happened a very long time ago), it will not generate significant follow-up 'oppose' !votes. Also, the context and the overall pattern are important. E.g. if an 'oppose' is based on some long-term problematic pattern of behavior by a particular candidate, older transgressions may be very relevant - it really depends on a specific case. Plus the severity of a particular transgression is an issue as well. An edit-warring block is one thing, but a pattern of tendentious editing is quite something else, and different RfA participants will (and must be allowed to) have different opinions about how long a period of substantively problem-free conduct must be in order to erase a particular transgression. Personally, I think that there are certain kinds of transgressions (e.g. real-world harassment of another editor) that permanently disqualify (at least in my eyes) an editor from becoming an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Very well said, Nsk92. I like Anne Delong's suggestion about using questions to invite candidates to deal with old worries, too. --Stfg (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Personally I would support there being a statute of limitations however I feel it must be more than 1 year, I think 2 or 3 would be sufficient. I know I have done things in my youth here in my first few years that I am not proud of and would affect me if I had run for adminship then but with the benefit of time, then something that happened in 2010 for example shouldn't really be considered in 2014 as a bar to running for adminship. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• But are those early blunders hints of a fundamental character flaw that would prevent you from wielding the mop with grace? If so, there's no way we should be compelled to overlook them; if not, any reasonable person will see that you've improved since then and assess your candidacy fairly. As it is, we very rarely see any legitimate opposition borne of years-old incidents that have not been reflected in recent editing patterns. A statue of wiki-limitations will only serve to make the voter's job harder, and in all likelihood lead to vast swaths of unsubstantiated claims, innumerable elephants in the room, widespread innuendo, and utter confusion. If a user's problematic past must be mandatorily swept under the rug to prevent people from discussing it, then that user should not be an admin. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• In the interest of fairness and neutrality, we should then add similar limitations to nominators and candidates wishing to point out their merits. If a candidate has done excellent work in Dispute Resolution, but hasn't edited WP:3O for 366 days, we should disregard that activity. The vandal-fighting he/she did as a newbie, before going on to article work, that shouldn't factor into our considerations, surely? And that GA he wrote in 2012 is, sadly, too old to demonstrate an understanding of article creation - what a shame. If we're going to impose this, it would be appropriate to judge all potential admins on only their last year's work, regardless of how long they've actually been here - this puts everyone, new editors and old hands, on a nice even playing field.

(That's an Oppose, by the way...) Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, all of us can agree that we all know more about how things work now than we did a year ago. If the candidate has counter-vandalism experience from over a year ago, then I doubt they've forgotten the rules for it. And so, if the candidate made a bad mistake a year ago, they have probably learned from it. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm far from favouring digging up diffs from 2007 where a candidate has misplaced a comma and shouting, "Look, they're clearly an ignoramus!". I just don't like the idea of a cut-off date beyond which all previous transgressions are automatically forgiven. I quite like Anne's suggestion, but really, I don't see a need for this - bureaucrats can already choose to disregard comments about ancient history in assessing Oppose votes, so there's no need for a specific rule that forbids bringing such events up for discussion. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AmaryllisGardener on this. I semi-support this, but just 1 year seems a bit small - as AG said, 2 years would probably be a better idea. Also, I completely agree about another point that AG made - people know more about how things work now than they did a year ago. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. While I respect that this was proposed in good faith, this a terrible idea. Valid reasons to oppose don't necessarily go away with the passage of time. Townlake (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Townlake not least of all because he has been around for long enough - years in fact - on RfA and adminship issues to have a far greater insight to their problems than those who are new to the grand perennial adminship debate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014[edit]

Please change ``Pakistan Awami Tehrik against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, over claims of governmental manipulations in the 2013 general election.[1] Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri``to Pakistan Awami Tehrik against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif Ganja, over claims of governmental manipulations in the 2013 general election.[1] Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri because it does not contain his full name.

Riskybilal (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Stickee (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

IPs: This is getting ridiculous[edit]

Recent interventions by IPs have been unhelpful to say the least. Is it time to consider prohibiting anonymous edits on any part of a current RfA page?: Noyster (talk), 15:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Townlake (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No, IPs are people too and should be able to comment, ask questions, etc. I can't think of any "unhelpful" IP interventions that occured recently anyway. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Whilst I agree most IPs here are more vandals than anything I've not yet witnessed any stupidity from any IP on RFA pages so don't see much point banning them, and anyway If IPs do cause shit we simply use Twinkle .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs would have been useful here. Based on what I've seen recently, though, IP participation isn't a problem. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is what Noyster is referring to. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But we see stuff like that from registered users too. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Registration should have its privileges. Notwithstanding the project's history of egalitarian participation by anyone, including IP users, it seems to me that registration is an extremely small burden for the privilege of participating in the selection of the project's sysops. Please note that I am generally not in favor of banning IPs from various topics, but in the context of RfAs I am more inclined to view such a proposal favorably for one simple reason: it will encourage more IPs to register. The second benefit: other RfA participants will be able to understand who is commenting and associate an on-wiki history and reputation with the RfA comments.

As for "unhelpful" RfA comments from IPs, we have witnessed several in the last month, one of which triggered a storm of pile-on opposes and torpedoed a qualified candidate and vandal fighter. In that particular case, the "IP" had no prior edit history and was almost certainly a registered user commenting while logged out. And that does offend my sense of fairness and on-wiki propriety. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• My 2 cents There are certain areas where anonymous commentary should not be allowed. This is one of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm with Dirtlawyer and Ad Orientem on this one. RfA tends to function as an actual non-anonymous election rather than a WP:STRAWPOLL - more than roughly a seven-tenths majority tends to be an automatic pass, for example, and only in a small range of actual vote count results do we pass discretion to the 'crats. For that reason I'm ok with requiring registration, maybe not to comment but certainly for [!]voting. For the record I don't think there's clear evidence that IPs are more disruptive at RfA than registered users, at least not lately. Ivanvector (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, I do believe that IPs are already not allowed to !vote at RfA. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

IPs can edit and can therefore !vote. We have an editnotice discouraging it, and I assume that any IP that !votes has their edit removed. Since threaded discussion is supposed to be discouraged in active RfAs (and should be on the talk page instead) I'm still okay with a technical restriction from editing RfAs for non-confirmed accounts and IPs. Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: No, unregistered users (i.e. IPs) cannot !vote. It's not just in the editnotice, it's explicitly stated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions, first sentence. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant to say. It is technically possible (not prevented by software) for IPs to post !votes, but (I'm assuming) either the 'crats disregard the !votes or the !votes are removed. I haven't seen it happen so I don't know. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: When reading through old RfAs, I once saw an IP's vote struck and told something like, "Sorry, IPs can't vote on RfAs", so it has happened. --Biblioworm 23:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion any IP who magically finds their way to RfA for their first edits is clearly someone logging out of their account to avoid scrutiny. Just like we don't allow votes from accounts created the same day we of course should not allow what is obviously evasion of scrutiny. It is sock puppetry through evasion of scrutiny in a contentious area.

Unlike other debates RfA is essentially vote, let us not pretend it is anything else. Allowing IPs and brand new users is allowing vote stacking.

We need to be stricter about disruption, trolling, and people not using their main accounts to avoid scrutiny.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, that means we welcome anon users to edit the encyclopedia. Those is not some suicide pact where we have to allow them into every part of our process.

In AfD the closer takes into account the value of each argument as related to article retention policies. In RfA the 'crats have very little discretion. So no, we should not let anonymous people vote. They should have an account and it should be created before the RfA was started.

The only people this will effect are those who know Wikipedia enough to have an opinion on RfA but are abusing multiple accounts or logging out to avoid scrutiny. If you think about it then it is obvious. Chillum 20:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose If there is a good reason to either oppose or support and RfA, then anyone should be able to voice it. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Should they get more than one vote? Because if we allow anonymous and new users to vote then there is nothing stopping someone from voting with their account and then logging out and voting again. Same goes with users created after the RfA. Chillum 21:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's been a risk since the beginning of voting on Wikipedia. It hasn't proven to be a meaningful problem. Townlake (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To me, both you User:Chillum and, say, IP 0123456789, are anonyms. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It has not been a problem because we don't let IPs and new accounts vote. By my memory it has been that way since I was made admin in 2006. Chillum 03:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose We should be able to distinguish between constructive and unconstructive, rather than base our decisions a priori, on the shape of someone's username. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support User:Chillum makes some strong arguments. I certainly believe a !vote should at least be dignified by a registered account. It shows respect to the community. An IP with an edit history of just voting in an RfA is concerning. A voter is a member of the Wikipedia community, who has shown some courage in registering, and showing responsibility for their editing career on WP. An IP, by their very reluctance to register, shows an ambivalence to the spirit of the project, and should not be trusted in such a critical community process as an RfA. Sorry if this sounds harsh to IP's of good will reading. So BLOODY REGISTER! Your Wikipedia needs you! :) Irondome (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I also want to point out that this in no way goes against our "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" philosophy because admin elections are not part of the encyclopedia. Anyone can edit the encyclopedia but admins are chosen by the actual community. Chillum 03:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• IPs aren't allowed to vote, but there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to offer non-disruptive comment. No one should be allowed to offer disruptive comments, so singling out IPs here makes no sense. (Of course, making a coherent argument for why your friend isn't a good candidate for administration isn't disruptive; it's the whole point). WilyD 12:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• The kind of IP participation at RfA recently and which has sparked off this thread smacks of block or ban evasion, and proxy servers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to a disgraceful proposal To summarize: The original proposer proposes to ban IPs from these discussions. The OP does not list any examples of IP "misconduct", and other editors can only think of one. The "misconduct" is an IP editor demanding evidence that the nominee actually is ignorant of CSD as accused. At the time of this writing, that evidence still has not been provided, so the IP has a good point. Meanwhile, various editors accuse the IP of being a banned editor, even though they could be a long-time IP editor whose IP hopped, or a long-time registered editor who forgot to log in. And wouldn't a block evading editor come here to trash the nominee in retaliation for their role in getting them banned? This one is defending the nominee from criticism. Frankly, I consider the IP conduct at the nomination much better than most of the registered users commenting here. Seriously, this is disgraceful, these claims that this guy is evil because of numbers in their usernames. Major WP:AGF violation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, that's a very strong comment. While you list a lot of relevant reasons why we may be wrong to disapprove of IP particpation on RfA, I feel you have perhaps not only insufficiently examined those arguments, but that you may be stretching our AGF policy a tad too far. Experienced editors have long since learned to recognise and interpret the patterns often associated with IP editors and they have a right to be skeptical. That said, the en.Wiki still has the most lax rules of all the major Wikipedias; perhaps because the others (e.g. de, fr, sp, it, etc.) having been created later, have seen the loopholes in our systems. There is a lot of call for change in our admin (s)election method - essentially what we need is improvement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone has to register just to participate in RfA we will be questioning their motives if they have no other edits under that username. The Moose is loose! 07:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Judge the post, not the posted, until you have genuinely good reason to believe otherwise. Genuinely good reasons does not include prejudice and stereotypes. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC

Oiyarbepsy, just to recap: Experienced editors have long since learned to recognise and interpret the patterns often associated with IP editors and they have a right to be skeptical. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Kudpung, often doesn't mean always, and not all of us are automatically skeptical of IPs. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yng, I know it doesn't - it was me who said it and I felt I had to repeat it. But I never said I was automatically skeptical of IPs. That's what I mean by having the experience to recognise the signs. The skill can be acquired of course, but 3 months and 3,000 edits don't cut it. Depends where you work most on Wikipedia, how often you are prepared to spend literally hours untangling intrigues, and how many years you've been doing it. I enjoy that kind of detective work, some don't. Gut feeling and intuition often start with recognising stereotype behaviour. Younger/newer editors tend to be more casual in their approach to such issues whereas old codgers like me are plodders, leaving no stone unturned. That's why we dig up the dirt on RfA - but also give credit when it's due. No wonder we end up sounding cynical ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm touchy on the topic. I have quite a bit more experience now than when I passed RfA, including some dark, dark stuff. I just got done reporting yet another incarnation of a long-term cross-wiki vandal who edits both as IPs and as a registered user. But I'm all too aware that some anti-vandal patrollers - many of them relatively new - are unreasonably biased against unregistered editors. And I hadn't realized how bad that was until relatively recently. Patterns are one thing, but bias is real and hurts us in many ways. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are plenty of admins who have a trigger finger when it comes to blocking new accounts or IPs. There's a reason we have stages of {{uw-vandal1}}, {{uw-vandal2}}, etc. But, many admins ignore this and block after too few warnings. So much of our content is contributed by new users or IP editors, yet we casually disrespect them and do not give them the courtesy we tell ourselves we're to give them. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Allowing IPs to participate invites trolling and double-voting (even if the second vote is not counted, it may create a discouraging atmosphere). RFA noms should be s-protected from their moment of creation. bd2412 T 18:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from IPs are easy to moderate (we've tolerated far worse disruption from people with actual accounts, if anyone remembers kmweber or a half dozen other RfA trolls over the years). I don't recall that IPs have ever been allowed to vote. I'm okay with this arrangement. Nathan ^T 18:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to all who have presented good arguments on both sides. Unfortunately, some contributors here assumed the discussion was about whether IPs should vote in RfAs, even though - as Redrose points out - the RfA page states only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". My post was to ask whether IPs should be permitted to comment in the voting section, or pose questions to candidates. This is not because of any belief that IPs are inherently "evil", but purely from seeing the effect of their particular interventions in recent RfAs. OK, IPs can start new accounts, but these are more easily discounted and can't be covered by "forgot to log in" or such excuses. Anyway, belatedly, here are recent examples as called for. Leaving aside plain vandalism and challenging of legitimate #votes:

[1] Weak attack couched as a question.

[2] Attack couched as a question, had an arguable case but quoted a weak example. The very fact that the question was posed by an IP enabled claims that the RfA had been "derail"ed by a "trolling IP" and led to much ill-feeling.

[3] Obscenity and fake signature. Once reverted, they resorted to sockpuppet accounts and the RfA had to be restricted to auto-confirmed users: Noyster (talk), 18:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Desysopping proposal[edit]

Please continue discussion at User:Biblioworm/Desysopping proposal[edit]

The people who have commented on this thread have brought several issues to light, and therefore, I do not believe that this is quite ready to be formally presented at the village pump. I have copied this proposal to User:Biblioworm/Desysopping proposal, where I will work on it and try to incorporate the suggestions that the commenters have given. Please continue discussion of this proposal on the relevant talk page. (You may want to watchlist the page if you're interested in keeping track of the changes.) Thanks, --Biblioworm 00:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A very radical proposal - RfAs without an oppose section[edit]