Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
Categories: Wikipedians who have a crowbar embedded in their skull | Wikipedians who insist that the word "lobster" be included in every article | Carbon-based life forms | Wikipedians who are Floyd Alvis Cooper | Delightfully insouciant Wikipedians | Animated cartoon squirrels
Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't take vandalism seriously enough (does every admin have to be at the forefront of the fight against vandalism?)
I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
Categories: Wikipedians who have a crowbar embedded in their skull | Wikipedians who insist that the word "lobster" be included in every article | Carbon-based life forms | Wikipedians who are Floyd Alvis Cooper | Delightfully insouciant Wikipedians | Animated cartoon squirrels
Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't take vandalism seriously enough (does every admin have to be at the forefront of the fight against vandalism?)
I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
Guy (JzG)
Those fake cats are awesome! /me scurries off to add'em to userpage. They won't work under blue cologne, but unfortunately not that many people use it, anyway.
~maru
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
If you want to start a constructive criticism about how to improve RfA, count me in.
If you just want to whinge about it...well, count me in anyway.
Steve
On 6/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
Categories: Wikipedians who have a crowbar embedded in their skull | Wikipedians who insist that the word "lobster" be included in every article | Carbon-based life forms | Wikipedians who are Floyd Alvis Cooper | Delightfully insouciant Wikipedians | Animated cartoon squirrels
Probably just fallout from the usebox thing. Although it does show that the candidate has a poor taste in skins.
Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't take vandalism seriously enough
Yeah well not everyone has been here long enough to remeber the hayday of User:Grunt and User:Grunt/Blocked
(does every admin have to be at the forefront of the fight against vandalism?)
No but historicaly most admins have had a background in vandle fighting. Always been tricky for non vandle fighters to get through.
On 6/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No but historicaly most admins have had a background in vandle fighting. Always been tricky for non vandle fighters to get through.
This shows an extremely short-range view of 'always' I was hitherto unaware of.
-Matt
On 6/14/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No but historicaly most admins have had a background in vandle fighting. Always been tricky for non vandle fighters to get through.
This shows an extremely short-range view of 'always' I was hitherto unaware of.
-Matt
It has been an issue to some degree since at least december 2004.
On 6/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No but historicaly most admins have had a background in vandle fighting. Always been tricky for non vandle fighters to get through.
This shows an extremely short-range view of 'always' I was hitherto unaware of.
It has been an issue to some degree since at least december 2004.
Quod erat demonstrandum :-)
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't take vandalism seriously enough
Best. Warning. Ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahk_Twen&diff=prev&...
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:10:05 +1000, "Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahk_Twen&diff=prev&...
Superb! Worthy of the mop all by itself :-)
Guy (JzG)
I've been lurking until now (just when you thought you were safe) ;)
My opinion: I agree. Opposing because of the categories is crazy.
I don't use standard warnings either (and I think if that was held against me, it would be really silly and an unproductive use of time); I use Ilyanep's templates but corrected for UK spelling.
- Nathan (nathanrdotcom)
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
Categories: Wikipedians who have a crowbar embedded in their skull | Wikipedians who insist that the word "lobster" be included in every article | Carbon-based life forms | Wikipedians who are Floyd Alvis Cooper | Delightfully insouciant Wikipedians | Animated cartoon squirrels
Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't take vandalism seriously enough (does every admin have to be at the forefront of the fight against vandalism?)
I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
Guy (JzG)
G'day Guy,
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
<snip/>
Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't take vandalism seriously enough (does every admin have to be at the forefront of the fight against vandalism?)
I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
Heck, using non-standard warnings (albeit perhaps not as flowery as the one cited) is something to be admired, not complained about.
We use the {{testN}} series far too often, and in cases where it's inappropriate. Admins being willing to think for themselves and treat the people they speak to as human beings is a Good Thing.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Guy,
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
<snip/> > Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't > take vandalism seriously enough (does every admin have to be at the > forefront of the fight against vandalism?) > > I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't > admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
Heck, using non-standard warnings (albeit perhaps not as flowery as the one cited) is something to be admired, not complained about.
We use the {{testN}} series far too often, and in cases where it's inappropriate. Admins being willing to think for themselves and treat the people they speak to as human beings is a Good Thing.
== See also == * [[User:Phroziac/test]] * [[User:Phroziac/test2]] * [[User:Phroziac/test3]] * [[User:Phroziac/test4]] * [[User:Phroziac/test5]]
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 12:56:46PM +1000, Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Guy,
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
<snip/> >Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't >take vandalism seriously enough (does every admin have to be at the >forefront of the fight against vandalism?) > >I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't >admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
Heck, using non-standard warnings (albeit perhaps not as flowery as the one cited) is something to be admired, not complained about.
We use the {{testN}} series far too often, and in cases where it's inappropriate. Admins being willing to think for themselves and treat the people they speak to as human beings is a Good Thing.
Entirely agree. I took a look at that RfA and thought "Why the hell do people apply to be admins. Nobody needs to put up with that much crap". i The process needs improving.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
On 6/15/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@octa4.net.au wrote:
Entirely agree. I took a look at that RfA and thought "Why the hell do people apply to be admins. Nobody needs to put up with that much crap". i The process needs improving.
Well, I'll repeat the suggestion I've made several times: get the community to define, quite closely, exactly what qualifications admins must have (minimum number of edits, namespace distributions etc), then reduce RfA to a fact-finding mission to determine whether they meet those criteria, with relatively little subjectivity in voting. Currently RfA voters have *way* too much freedom in coming up with silly reasons to vote for or against candidates.
Bad reasons I've seen for voting against: * Didn't have email set (no one had told him to) * Didn't answer questions within 24 hours * Didn't fill out RfA form properly * Was too demanding on someone else's RfA (!) * Had added a racist Jewish joke to an article about racist, Jewish jokes. * Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to) * Had a silly user page * Less than 3000 edits * Has strong opinions on userboxes
Bad reasons I've seen for voting for: * Had taken lots of photos for the project (I like this guy a lot, fwiw) * Seems nice * Hasn't done anything stupid * Made several great FAs.
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
Steve
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Bad reasons I've seen for voting against:
- Didn't have email set (no one had told him to)
No but it is generaly considered polite to do so.
- Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to)
That would generaly be considered to be one of those things you should just know.
- Has strong opinions on userboxes
After Cyde it is understandable that people are going to be a little twitchy about that one.
- Hasn't done anything stupid
Pretty good reason in fact. Admin powers should go to as many users as we can trust with them. The ability to avoid doing stupid things is something I like to se in admins.
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
Steve
Or you could encourage people to use my system of only voteing for people they already know about.
On 6/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Bad reasons I've seen for voting against:
- Didn't have email set (no one had told him to)
No but it is generaly considered polite to do so.
Yep. And if after a month as an admin, they still hadn't done it, you could raise a complaint.
- Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to)
That would generaly be considered to be one of those things you should just know.
He didn't. And when told, he fixed it. So, we've voting no on people who don't know everything there is to know about wikipedia?
- Has strong opinions on userboxes
After Cyde it is understandable that people are going to be a little twitchy about that one.
Has Cyde been desysopped? No? So, evidently strong opinions on userboxes do not conflict significantly with being a decent admin.
- Hasn't done anything stupid
Pretty good reason in fact. Admin powers should go to as many users as we can trust with them. The ability to avoid doing stupid things is something I like to se in admins.
Lots of users haven't done anything stupid. Should they all be admins?
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
Steve
Or you could encourage people to use my system of only voteing for people they already know about.
Tell me more about your system.
Steve
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Bad reasons I've seen for voting against:
- Didn't have email set (no one had told him to)
No but it is generaly considered polite to do so.
Yep. And if after a month as an admin, they still hadn't done it, you could raise a complaint.
And what good would that do?
- Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to)
That would generaly be considered to be one of those things you should just know.
He didn't. And when told, he fixed it. So, we've voting no on people who don't know everything there is to know about wikipedia?
No but not useing us to produce several thousand links to whatever would be nice.
- Has strong opinions on userboxes
After Cyde it is understandable that people are going to be a little twitchy about that one.
Has Cyde been desysopped? No? So, evidently strong opinions on userboxes do not conflict significantly with being a decent admin.
Have you ever tried to get someone desysopped?
In any case it doesn't matter. In past conflicts it didn't really matter how many admins you had on your side other than as part of the more generaly numbers you had. In the case of userboxes the number of admins you had on your side and who were ready to throw around their admin powers and wheel war was absolutely critical.
- Hasn't done anything stupid
Pretty good reason in fact. Admin powers should go to as many users as we can trust with them. The ability to avoid doing stupid things is something I like to se in admins.
Lots of users haven't done anything stupid. Should they all be admins?
Assuming they have been around long enough to establish a pattern of not doing stupid things sure.
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
Steve
Or you could encourage people to use my system of only voteing for people they already know about.
Tell me more about your system.
Steve
Go to RFA once or twice a week. Scan list. Vote on anyone you already know. Go back to dealing with other stuff onwiki.
On 6/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. And if after a month as an admin, they still hadn't done it, you could raise a complaint.
And what good would that do?
? You appear to have lost faith in Wikipedia here.
- Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to)
He didn't. And when told, he fixed it. So, we've voting no on people who don't know everything there is to know about wikipedia?
No but not useing us to produce several thousand links to whatever would be nice.
"Would be nice" -> "if he failed to do that, we vote no"? Anyway, since nofollow is now enabled for talk pages, it is unlikely to be a problem.
Anyway, I don't really understand your line of argument here. Are you saying that candidates that fail to do what "would be nice" should be rejected? Are you saying that such minor offenses that are corrected merely by asking the person to stop doing it, are still reasons to vote no? Why do we even care about such tiny things, just because they're done by RfA candidates?
Has Cyde been desysopped? No? So, evidently strong opinions on userboxes do not conflict significantly with being a decent admin.
Have you ever tried to get someone desysopped?
Nope, but it would be much better to facilitate the process for desysopping people who behave badly, than not promoting them out of fear that they "could" behave badly, because they have strong opinions on things.
Lots of users haven't done anything stupid. Should they all be admins?
Assuming they have been around long enough to establish a pattern of not doing stupid things sure.
So a user who has been around for 3 years, turning 5 pokemon articles into FAs and decorating his userpage would be a good admin - assuming that's all he's done. Surely we can do better than promoting admins on the basis of what they *haven't* done.
Go to RFA once or twice a week. Scan list. Vote on anyone you already know. Go back to dealing with other stuff onwiki.
Would you like to take this further and make an RfA guideline that people should primarily vote on people they already know, and if not, to tread warily and heavily research candidates before voting?
Steve
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
? You appear to have lost faith in Wikipedia here.
No I just accept that admins pretty much have teniture. You can remove them but it isn't easy
"Would be nice" -> "if he failed to do that, we vote no"? Anyway, since nofollow is now enabled for talk pages, it is unlikely to be a problem.
Anyway, I don't really understand your line of argument here. Are you saying that candidates that fail to do what "would be nice" should be rejected? Are you saying that such minor offenses that are corrected merely by asking the person to stop doing it, are still reasons to vote no? Why do we even care about such tiny things, just because they're done by RfA candidates?
I would be unlikly to vote over a single issue like that but I would view it as evidence they they had not read the admins reading list prior to either nominating or accepting the nomination.
Nope, but it would be much better to facilitate the process for desysopping people who behave badly, than not promoting them out of fear that they "could" behave badly, because they have strong opinions on things.
Strong opinions per say have not historicaly been a problem. Strong opinions on the way wikipedia should be run tend to be more of a problem
So a user who has been around for 3 years, turning 5 pokemon articles into FAs and decorating his userpage would be a good admin - assuming that's all he's done.
Yup. Probably able to work with other people (getting things to FA without working with other people is posible but not in a subject area as popular with pokemon) and the person will understand at least part of our fair use rules.
Surely we can do better than promoting admins on the basis of what they *haven't* done.
Not really. Adminship should be as widely held as posible.
Would you like to take this further and make an RfA guideline that people should primarily vote on people they already know, and if not, to tread warily and heavily research candidates before voting?
Steve
Not a massive fan of guidlines (no one seems to read them unless they are hopeing to use them against someone) so probably not but I would support the general idea.
On 6/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not a massive fan of guidlines (no one seems to read them unless they are hopeing to use them against someone) so probably not but I would support the general idea.
A common complaint, but one I don't understand. "What's the point of rules, no one reads them unless they're complaining that someone isn't following them?" That seems to me to be utterly consistent with the wiki model - we have no police, so the only way to enforce rules/guidelines is for people to call each other out when they don't follow them. Without the rules/guidelines, you can't even do that.
Steve
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
A common complaint, but one I don't understand. "What's the point of rules, no one reads them unless they're complaining that someone isn't following them?" That seems to me to be utterly consistent with the wiki model - we have no police, so the only way to enforce rules/guidelines is for people to call each other out when they don't follow them. Without the rules/guidelines, you can't even do that.
Steve
Except the shear number of guidelines means that there is normaly something with says that technicaly you should not be doing whatever you are doing. Fortunetly there is such a high level of internal contradiction that it is normaly posible to get around any such suggestions.
On 6/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Except the shear number of guidelines means that there is normaly something with says that technicaly you should not be doing whatever you are doing. Fortunetly there is such a high level of internal contradiction that it is normaly posible to get around any such suggestions.
That's a pretty negative view of policies and guidelines, which I'm not sure I agree with. It can certainly happen that two guidelines give conflicting advice for a given situation. That doesn't mean the two guidelines are wrong, it means that life is complicated. However, if you find two guidelines that are always in contradiction (and I don't mean two principles that exist in dynamic equilibrium like "build the web" versus "only make links that are relevant to the context"), please point them out.
Steve
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
That's a pretty negative view of policies and guidelines, which I'm not sure I agree with.
Policies tend to be somewhat better. There are fewer of them, they have to reach a higher standard to be aproved and generaly somewhere along the line they have had someone go through and word them to limit the damage rule lawyers can do.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:45:23AM +0100, geni wrote:
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Bad reasons I've seen for voting against:
- Didn't have email set (no one had told him to)
No but it is generaly considered polite to do so.
- Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to)
That would generaly be considered to be one of those things you should just know.
- Has strong opinions on userboxes
After Cyde it is understandable that people are going to be a little twitchy about that one.
- Hasn't done anything stupid
Pretty good reason in fact. Admin powers should go to as many users as we can trust with them. The ability to avoid doing stupid things is something I like to se in admins.
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
Steve
Or you could encourage people to use my system of only voteing for people they already know about.
Exactly. That is what I do. Who are these people who chase through every nominees contributions when they do not know them?
-- geni
On 6/15/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@octa4.net.au wrote:
Exactly. That is what I do. Who are these people who chase through every nominees contributions when they do not know them?
There are a number of "RfA regulars". They, IMHO, tend to be the most demanding, tend to throw their weight around the most, and are the most resistant to any idea of reducing the discretion given to voters in RfA.
With apologies to an RfA regularl here - there are also at least one or two who do a very good job.
Steve
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:49 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
There are a number of "RfA regulars". They, IMHO, tend to be the most demanding, tend to throw their weight around the most, and are the most resistant to any idea of reducing the discretion given to voters in RfA.
You may well be right. I only vote for (or against) editors I know or whose history I have reviewed to the point where my (fairly low) criteria are satisfied. I cleave to the "no big deal" rule; as long as they are productive and not edit warriors, give them the mop. Worst case, they do Bad Things and we take it away again. Best case: the backlog for admin actions gets shortened.
I think that my real criteria are that someone is prepared to be accountable for their actions, and will acknowledge a mistake with good grace; that demands a certain volume of edits to prove. But not that many. Again: no big deal.
Guy (JzG)
I have 2x-4x as many edits as everyone currently on the RFA, and I've been here a year longer. How am I not an admin? =(
mboverload
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:49 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
There are a number of "RfA regulars". They, IMHO, tend to be the most demanding, tend to throw their weight around the most, and are the most resistant to any idea of reducing the discretion given to voters in RfA.
You may well be right. I only vote for (or against) editors I know or whose history I have reviewed to the point where my (fairly low) criteria are satisfied. I cleave to the "no big deal" rule; as long as they are productive and not edit warriors, give them the mop. Worst case, they do Bad Things and we take it away again. Best case: the backlog for admin actions gets shortened.
I think that my real criteria are that someone is prepared to be accountable for their actions, and will acknowledge a mistake with good grace; that demands a certain volume of edits to prove. But not that many. Again: no big deal.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/28/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
I have 2x-4x as many edits as everyone currently on the RFA, and I've been here a year longer. How am I not an admin? =(
Has anyone nominated you? Do you meet all the requirements? Would you be a good one?
Steve
Heh, I was mostly joking, but no, no one has ever nominated me, I just came up with those figures while I was discussing RFA requirements with some friends on IRC. I was looking through them and I'm like "Wow, I could totally run for admin!" =D Eh, I'm not going to brag about being a great candidate for admin on the mailing list, seems a bit tacky.
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
I have 2x-4x as many edits as everyone currently on the RFA, and I've
been
here a year longer. How am I not an admin? =(
Has anyone nominated you? Do you meet all the requirements? Would you be a good one?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/28/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, I was mostly joking, but no, no one has ever nominated me, I just came up with those figures while I was discussing RFA requirements with some friends on IRC. I was looking through them and I'm like "Wow, I could totally run for admin!" =D Eh, I'm not going to brag about being a great candidate for admin on the mailing list, seems a bit tacky.
You're unlikely to become an admin without going through the RfA process.
Steve
Hehe =D I'm considering it.
mboverload
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, I was mostly joking, but no, no one has ever nominated me, I just
came
up with those figures while I was discussing RFA requirements with some friends on IRC. I was looking through them and I'm like "Wow, I could totally run for admin!" =D Eh, I'm not going to brag about being a great candidate for admin on the mailing list, seems a bit tacky.
You're unlikely to become an admin without going through the RfA process.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
That sounds like an excellent idea. I, like many other people in my experience, only tend to vote on RfAs where I know about the candidate, where I have edited many articles that they have edited or participated in many discussions that they have participated in.
This is fine for me, but there are quite a few people who participate on RfA who don't know every candidate well (which is fine - it's a community decision).
Most often, nominators are people who have plenty of experience with the candidate, and perhaps they sometimes forget to communicate clearly to that second group of people who want to participate but aren't familiar with all the candidates. Higher standards for *nominators* means better information for the community.
I would also suggest more standard questions for candidates, and encourage people who add questions of their own.
On 6/15/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I would also suggest more standard questions for candidates, and encourage people who add questions of their own.
I actually dislike the questions, as it reduces RfA to a beauty pageant. Most of the questions are pretty retarded anyway, like "a vandal shows up, but claims to be Jimbo, and starts heavily editing FAs. Three hippos in pink tutus come past and tell you that he's ok, but then a purple geranium points out that this user has been blocked in the past. What do you do?" In most cases, RfA candidates aren't equipped to deal with such questions, and they shouldn't have to: the mechanics of being an admin are learnt on the job, by asking other admins. In other cases, the candidate is probably going to end up giving a "safe" answer, which sounds good, but which no one is ever going to hold them accountable to.
In other words, the questions only test whether the candidate knows what RfA voters want to hear. Unfortunately, that's not a particularly useful quality.
Steve
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I would also suggest more standard questions for candidates, and encourage people who add questions of their own.
I actually dislike the questions, as it reduces RfA to a beauty pageant. Most of the questions are pretty retarded anyway, like "a
Clarification: the standard questions are good, as they get the user to explain in their own words their contributions to Wikipedia, and what they would bring as an admin. The questions from the peanut gallery are less good.
Steve
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:27:33 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The questions from the peanut gallery are less good.
Best one I've seen: do you see the role of administrator as that of policeman or janitor. Made me think, anyway.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Best one I've seen: do you see the role of administrator as that of policeman or janitor. Made me think, anyway.
The role of admin on Wikipedia pretty much corresponds to nothing anywhere else. Hence the problem.
Steve
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Best one I've seen: do you see the role of administrator as that of policeman or janitor. Made me think, anyway.
Before I got adminship? Policeman.
Now? Holy crap, I smell like turpentine.
-Ras
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:27:33 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The questions from the peanut gallery are less good.
Best one I've seen: do you see the role of administrator as that of policeman or janitor. Made me think, anyway.
Guy (JzG)
Adminship is to a large degree what you make it. A lot of admins are not particlarly active as admins (for the record I define not particularly active as less than 100 actions per month). Others specialise in cleanup. Others try and become policemen. Still others politicians.
G'day Guy,
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:27:33 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The questions from the peanut gallery are less good.
Best one I've seen: do you see the role of administrator as that of policeman or janitor. Made me think, anyway.
Too vulnerable to the "faking through a job interview" style of answering. Anyone who does a modicum of research before accepting their RfA (that is to say, looking at other RfAs) will know how strong the "janitor" metaphor is. Unless the "policeman" metaphor becomes more acceptable to the community --- and I hope it won't --- then, knowing the mindset of many who hang out at RfA, this is a very simple pass/fail question. Admittedly, the "oh, policeman, obviously" is something that might trap a clueless CVU newbie or two, so we can weed them out before they do any damage after passing on their vandal-biting contribution alone.
I'd like to see more creative answers. Like: "admins are neither policemen nor janitors; we're volunteer firemen from the SES. We clean up messes, protect fellow community members from fires, and if necessary have the power to confiscate matches from particularly nasty firebugs."
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:13:58 +1000, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I'd like to see more creative answers. Like: "admins are neither policemen nor janitors; we're volunteer firemen from the SES. We clean up messes, protect fellow community members from fires, and if necessary have the power to confiscate matches from particularly nasty firebugs."
Exactly. Policeman is a fail, janitor is a fail (too obvious), your answer is a pass :-)
Guy (JzG)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:17:32 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
This has definite merit. More like a RFAr - initial fact finding, then voting. I'd vote for that if polls weren't evil ;-)
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@octa4.net.au wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 12:56:46PM +1000, Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Guy,
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
<snip/> >Others think that his use of non-standard warnings means he doesn't >take vandalism seriously enough (does every admin have to be at the >forefront of the fight against vandalism?) > >I can understand people choosing not to vote for admins they don't >admire, but opposing on these weird grounds is... well, weird.
Heck, using non-standard warnings (albeit perhaps not as flowery as the one cited) is something to be admired, not complained about.
We use the {{testN}} series far too often, and in cases where it's inappropriate. Admins being willing to think for themselves and treat the people they speak to as human beings is a Good Thing.
Entirely agree. I took a look at that RfA and thought "Why the hell do people apply to be admins. Nobody needs to put up with that much crap". i The process needs improving.
It's been getting gradually worse and worse. Actually some of the oppose votes are really getting my goat. To oppose someone because they have a sense of humour? To oppose someone because they are personable to vandals and newbies? Who the fuck to these people think they are , and why are they not banned from WP:RFA for disruption?
(I know I'm ranting a bit but grrrr!!! it really annoyes me)
Theresa
On 6/15/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
It's been getting gradually worse and worse. Actually some of the oppose votes are really getting my goat. To oppose someone because they have a sense of humour? To oppose someone because they are personable to vandals and newbies? Who the fuck to these people think they are , and why are they not banned from WP:RFA for disruption?
(I know I'm ranting a bit but grrrr!!! it really annoyes me)
Theresa
The side effect of a large number of very high qualitiy candidates. they can get away with setting very high standards because there will be a lot of people who meet them.
On 6/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The side effect of a large number of very high qualitiy candidates. they can get away with setting very high standards because there will be a lot of people who meet them.
That would be ok, if we were setting "very high standards", like picking people who had over 300 edits to wp:copyvio, or had reported over 500 vandals to AN/I. Instead, we're just exploiting people's eagerness to be admins by making them jump through ridiculous hoops. "If you don't do this for me, I'm voting against you."
Steve
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
Finally got around to reading this. What rot. Complaints included:
* The aforementioned fake categories * Using a "fake signature" (actually he forgot to sign), unretracted * Not "conveying an image of seriousness" (???) * Not using standard warning templates (he wrote WTF on a vandal's talk page with a link to the offending edit) * "Casually mentioning that he might undelete some articles" - the question asked was what he would do with his admin tools. He said he might undelete some speedied articles. Um, yes? He might block some users, too. Both legitimate activities. * "Conduct unbecoming an admin" - I think this refers to having a sense of humour * Finding vandalism funny...
In other words, he doesn't take Wikipedia that seriously, and is able to make valuable contributions anyway. Eep.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
Finally got around to reading this. What rot. Complaints included:
- The aforementioned fake categories
- Using a "fake signature" (actually he forgot to sign), unretracted
- Not "conveying an image of seriousness" (???)
- Not using standard warning templates (he wrote WTF on a vandal's
talk page with a link to the offending edit)
- "Casually mentioning that he might undelete some articles" - the
question asked was what he would do with his admin tools. He said he might undelete some speedied articles. Um, yes? He might block some users, too. Both legitimate activities.
- "Conduct unbecoming an admin" - I think this refers to having a
sense of humour
- Finding vandalism funny...
In other words, he doesn't take Wikipedia that seriously, and is able to make valuable contributions anyway. Eep.
Steve
There's a difference between treating WP like a playground, and treating it like a workplace where whistling while you work is acceptable. If there was ever evidence that RfA just fails on occasion, this is one of those cases.
John
As someone who has just recently gone through the RfA process successfully, I thought I would pipe in with a few thoughts.
First, I tend to be a lot like Geni when participating in an RfA - if I know the user, I might vote. There's only been a couple of times I've voted for a user that I didn't know, and at least once I regretted the decision.
I was really surprised that my RfA passed, and fairly convincingly. But, I think I approached the RfA knowing what my limitations were and knowing what my strengths are going to be as an admin. I'm not a vandal fighter. If I see vandalism on my watchlist, I'll go after it. But, I'm not out there monitoring recent changes or anything like that looking for vandalism. I wanted the RfA tool mostly to deal with image related issues, and I think all of my admin functions to date have related to images.
The biggest problem that I see with the RfA process is that you have a group of folks (and it's a fairly large group) who vote on nearly every RfA. Unless they are spending all of their wiki time researching admins, which I think is silly, they have to come up with some fairly objective standards to measure folks against. It could be that they don't have an email enabled, they haven't contributed substansially to an FA, they have too few counts, or that they don't have the right blend of counts (too few main talk or user talk, etc). While many would view some of these as being really silly, they do allow a line in the sand to be drawn to give a yes or no vote.
On RfA questions, I think many are really silly. Most of mine were very appropriate and geared towards how I would handle certain image-related questions.
It's one of the reasons I was supportive, although I didn't express that view yet, of the person going around and "advertising" an RfA of someone that they had worked with. I'm one that doesn't necessarily check RfA on a regular basis, but if one of the editors that I work with on Olympic pages or something else was up for RfA, I would go vote.
Sue Annesreed1234@yahoo.com
On 6/15/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
The biggest problem that I see with the RfA process is that you have a group of folks (and it's a fairly large group) who vote on nearly every RfA. Unless they are spending all of their wiki time researching admins, which I think is silly, they have to come up with some fairly objective standards to measure folks against. It could
"Objective" is a nice way of putting it. "Superficial", "arbitrary" or "meaningless" come to mind as well. Again, the problem is not that objective measures exist. It's that each user comes up with his own, without consulting with anyone else over whether or not they're actually meaningful or have any value.
So, instead of "User X is a bit of a dweeb, I've seen him around, and he only ever makes stupid comments" we have the "objective" comment of "User X failed my automatic dweebatron2000() measurement, hence voting no."
Steve
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:50:36 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, he doesn't take Wikipedia that seriously, and is able to make valuable contributions anyway.
Seems set to become a rouge admin even before he's started!
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, he doesn't take Wikipedia that seriously, and is able to make valuable contributions anyway. Eep.
Steve
Admin takeing wikipedia seriously = rapid burnout.
The only real issue is the Lolicon thing and since I avoided that one the second time around I'm not really in a position to comment.
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
We need to enforce sane rationales for votes on RfA ... somehow. Particularly for oppose votes, since they carry much more weight. Failing that, perhaps we should start a Wiki society that, for every oppose vote judged to be idiotic, automatically mass votes in favour of the candidate.
And I'm only half-joking ;-)
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
I think bureaucrats should disregard stupid oppose votes when deciding consensus and should say so.
Theresa
On 6/15/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
We need to enforce sane rationales for votes on RfA ... somehow. Particularly for oppose votes, since they carry much more weight. Failing that, perhaps we should start a Wiki society that, for every oppose vote judged to be idiotic, automatically mass votes in favour of the candidate.
And I'm only half-joking ;-)
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Theresa Knott wrote:
I think bureaucrats should disregard stupid oppose votes when deciding consensus and should say so.
Bureaucrat candidates who have ever indicated that they would act as something other than votecounters have been strongly opposed; some barely scraped through (e.g. Essjay) and even this was after they gave in and agreed to avoid exercising discretion unless the percentage of support votes was between 75% and 80% (>80% is automatic support; <75% is automatic fail, or a relist at best). In short, "RfA regulars" or the "community" are uncomfortable with such discretionary powers; to them, bureaucrats are just for deciding the sticky 75% to 80% decisions, and discounting socks. Then again, this does seem to work for the most part. Barring a major controversy, I think Herostratus will pass comfortably.
John
On 6/15/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Bureaucrat candidates who have ever indicated that they would act as something other than votecounters have been strongly opposed; some
Heh, "RfA is not a vote. However, bureacrats are strongly encouraged to treat it as one..."
Steve
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Bureaucrat candidates who have ever indicated that they would act as something other than votecounters have been strongly opposed; some
Heh, "RfA is not a vote. However, bureacrats are strongly encouraged to treat it as one..."
Or better yet, RfA is a !vote. If vote-counting is illegal, let us !vote-count. Each comment in AfDs and RfAs shall henceforth be known as !votes, and we shall !vote count to our heart's content.
!voting is !evil.
Matt R wrote:
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
We need to enforce sane rationales for votes on RfA ... somehow. Particularly for oppose votes, since they carry much more weight. Failing that, perhaps we should start a Wiki society that, for every oppose vote judged to be idiotic, automatically mass votes in favour of the candidate.
And I'm only half-joking ;-)
TINC.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals
G'day Matt,
On 6/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Just when you think you've seen it all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus
One editor opposes adminship on the grounds that Herostratus has some nicely executed fake "categories" on his user page:
We need to enforce sane rationales for votes on RfA ... somehow. Particularly for oppose votes, since they carry much more weight. Failing that, perhaps we should start a Wiki society that, for every oppose vote judged to be idiotic, automatically mass votes in favour of the candidate.
And I'm only half-joking ;-)
RfA is like AfD: its major problems are social --- that is to say, a culture that "oppose, too few portal edits" is acceptable has appeared. The solution isn't to hang around on the list complaining that "oppose, bites newbies left right and centre" is an inappropriate view, but to get onto RfA and:
a) Set a good example!
b) Point out stupid comments.
If every time someone said "oppose, has only been here three years with 20 000 edits and beloved by nearly everyone, rather than four years, 30 000 edits and everyone", someone *else* posted a reply pointing out just how silly such a view is, it might die out. And the good thing about it is it's self-correcting: if you say "$x is silly", and $x is in fact a Very Good Point, then you will look silly and the practice of $x will continue.
Either way, getting involved as a general rule is a Good Thing.
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
If every time someone said "oppose, has only been here three years with 20 000 edits and beloved by nearly everyone, rather than four years, 30 000 edits and everyone", someone *else* posted a reply pointing out just how silly such a view is, it might die out. And the good thing about it is it's self-correcting: if you say "$x is silly", and $x is in fact a Very Good Point, then you will look silly and the practice of $x will continue.
In my limited experience, the response is more likely to be that people stop explaining their votes, or simply dig in their heels and say "I'm entitled to define my own standards" (we even have a page that encourages people to do it).
A large influx of common sense could not hurt, of course. But we really should agree what *is* reasonable and what isn't. Is 1500 edits minimum reasonable? Is 3 months active participation minimum reasonable?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
If every time someone said "oppose, has only been here three years with 20 000 edits and beloved by nearly everyone, rather than four years, 30 000 edits and everyone", someone *else* posted a reply pointing out just how silly such a view is, it might die out. And the good thing about it is it's self-correcting: if you say "$x is silly", and $x is in fact a Very Good Point, then you will look silly and the practice of $x will continue.
In my limited experience, the response is more likely to be that people stop explaining their votes, or simply dig in their heels and say "I'm entitled to define my own standards" (we even have a page that encourages people to do it).
A large influx of common sense could not hurt, of course. But we really should agree what *is* reasonable and what isn't. Is 1500 edits minimum reasonable? Is 3 months active participation minimum reasonable?
I'd prefer something more like ~200-300 edits, been there a month or two, and seems to be a sane and reasonable person. Adminship isn't a big deal, really. It gives you a rollback button, the ability to delete pages, and the ability to block users, all of which can be undone if you misuse them. Now even image deletions can be undone, so there really is minimal danger in just giving every reasonable comer admin privileges.
-Mark