Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 149

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A RFA candidate can refuse to answer any question.User Kmweber has removed questions put by users.[1]I just want a clarification can a RFA candidates remove questions put to them or not.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ArbCom elections are a very different beast from RfX.
In an RfX, while technically there's nothing on the books saying that a candidate can't remove a question, it would look highly suspect, and could be damning, depending on the question. They're better off just postponing answering. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

All he's done is move the unanswered questions to a subpage, and he's put a link in the header where you can go and look at which questions he didn't answer. I don't really see a problem with doing it openly like that.--

the Orphanage

16:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As for how it relates to RfX: as long as it is clear to the community which questions the candidate refused to answer, I would say it would be ok to do it the way Kmweber is. Simply deleting the questions without comment would NOT be ok, although I have a feeling there's no real need for a rule against it: most likely that would sink the candidacy on its own, and therefore be a self-correcting problem.--

the Orphanage

17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

With the help of the new RFA categories, I've updated my RFA edit count statistics. I conclude from this data that editcount inflation has slowed significantly, but not diminished, since last year. While the numbers of edits expected on RfA continue to increase slightly, they are no longer growing at the large exponential rate they were up to 2007.

Currently, the average* successful candidate has about 10,000 edits, compared to about 2,500 for unsuccessful candidates.

This graph shows the statistics on a log scale, with the trend line for successful RfAs compared to the trend line extrapolated from my 2007 prediction. It also shows the trend line for unsuccessful RfAs. RfAs that predate MathBot posting the edit count on the talk page are no longer shown.

* "Average" here refers to the mean on a log scale. Assuming an exponential distribution of edit counts, this should approximate the median.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This really surprises me... I remember a time where it seemed that if you had 10K edits, then it was too late to run for admin. There was almost a sense that if you had that many edits, then you were bound to have pissed somebody off and made some mistake that passing was virtually impossible. And it wasn't that long ago that I thought that! (Although I have noticed a trend lately to pass these higher producers.) I also think part of the reason we might be seeing this shift is the increase in the use of tools. I would love to see the results of manual edits only---would that be possible?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the tool to scrap out manual edits only works on accounts with under 25,000 edits, which is fewer than most admins have. Also, the tool was invented only a few months ago, so it would be impossible to back date the data to the date the person became an admin. MBisanz ^talk 15:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice graph. The only thing that confused me at first was red meaning a pass and green meaning a fail. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by this data, though my focus is on two items. First, how would this look if it went back beyond 2006? Put another way, what editcounts did the first admins have when granted the tools? Obviously they'd be lower, but how much, I wonder? The second is the current state of RfA - what is currently required to pass. I've been tinkering with the last 6 months or so of RfAs, and plan to keep a running tabulation of the last 75, or just under the last 5% of successful RFAs. The stats I've used are here. The average I've come up with for the last 74 new admins (less 4 with edits over 45000), we find that the average number of edits is 11,514 - quite close to the average shown above. The average age of account is 25 months. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotally, the RFAs I categorized from 2004/2005 had comments like "My criteria are high at 2,000 edits" or "He's been here 3 months, that is enough". MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The red for success was meant to be "rouge", the official color of adminship. Failures are black, and the green line is a trend line. I can see how it's confusing, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it can help to show the big picture. Note that the earlier data is a bit noisier, though, because there weren't accurate edit counts reported in a consistent place. Here's the graph going back 4 years. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Some stats that I'd be interested in: minimum edit count vs. chance of passing, and experience vs. chance of passing. For example, for recent RfAs, for editors with over 3000 edits, what was the chance of passing? 4000? over 6 months of editing? 9 months? And how does that compare with the average pass rate? I'd do them myself, but my stat class lies longer in the past than I'd like to think about it.--

the Orphanage

02:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that "experience" isn't necessarily quantifiable. Time between X and the first edit is calculable, but someone that makes one thousand edits over three years and then puts in five thousand in a single month will have a different result than someone that puts in six thousand edits over three months. Both their RfAs would be very, very different. (though there will always be extremes at either end, and perhaps we Don't Care about those) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What about

3400+ in one day? J.delanoy^gabs_adds

03:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Looking back at my own RfA (June 2005) I only had 2450 edits when I was nominated. If I remember correctly, talk at the time suggested that a user should probably have at least a thousand edits for a run at adminship. Now – more than three years later – I still only have about twelve thousand edits. Apparently it is now (effectively) required for admins to have installed and extensively used some sort of automated vandal-whacking tools to rack up thousands of productive (but not terribly informative) edits. Ugh. I still have never used an automated tool to edit Wikipedia, and it seems likely that that would now disqualify me for adminship. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. Someone who passed an RFA (I can't remember who exactly) within the last two or three weeks had around eight thousand edits. The big thing now seems to be having lots of GAs, FAs, and DYK's. Huggle only makes me look like I'm doing a lot. In reality, fighting vandalism lies somewhere between watching TV and playing video games in the amount of mental concentration required. If you had (or have. I keep switching tense...) a decent number of substantial mainspace contribs, and a reasonable edit count, say, four to seven thousand, you probably wouldn't have too much trouble passing. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So here's the thing. Why does it take 4000 edits to have a "reasonable edit count" now? I was promoted with 1500. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I would opine that it has to do with the maturation of the community. As time goes on, the average edit count and level of experience of the community goes up. This means that the expected edit count and level of experience of potential admins is also going to go up, since admins are assumed to be somewhat above average (whether they are or not).--

the Orphanage

05:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point, or perhaps proving it. It took me nearly three years to hit eight thousand edits, and I spent more than two of those years with my admin bit. Four years ago, "four to seven thousand" edits wasn't a minimum standard but a remarkable achievement. Just about the only accounts with those sorts of edit counts were bots, plus a small handful of admins who made very regular use of their rollback privileges.

At two thousand edits I had ample experience editing articles, resolving disputes, reverting vandals, dealing with AfD (back when it was VfD), posting to AN and AN/I, responding to copyright issues, and fiddling with wiki-markup. Every one of my edits was 'handmade', with none of this Huggle/Twinkle/what-have-you inflation. (I still don't use any of those tools.) I fear that the emphasis on edit count and vandal-whacking means that RfA nominees are in effect required to use the automated tools to have a successful nomination. I remember when I started out the standard was (roughly speaking) 1000 edits, 3 months, and not obviously a menace. We've gone too far from that, methinks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

*takes a step backwards* Not quite sure what to say here. I guess I have (or hopefully, had) a really narrow view of this project. The reason I said what I did is because I am used to being around people who fight vandalism. For these, RFA is brutal, and you have to have a huge edit count since you can easily rack up several thousand of edits in a a couple of weeks. Since as a rule, I don't write articles, I don't know many people who work in that area. Since I don't see them at other times, I don't notice when they are promoted, and since I don't know them, I rarely comment in their RFAs.

I guess I probably owe you, rspeer, about 4/5 of Wikipedia's administrators and probably more than two-thirds of Wikipedians as a whole an apology. I didn't realize how zeroed in I am on my area par excellance.... I'm sorry for saying that. (wow, I didn't even know it was possible to unintentionally insult so many people that I respect with one edit :/ ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for an apology — I wasn't insulted, and I don't think any of the others were, either. I was lamenting that expectations at RfA have shifted to emphasize ridiculously high edit counts. We essentially tell editors with fewer than – what is it, now? – four thousand edits not to bother with RfA, and I think we're doing the community a disservice that way. We just won't see editors who don't use the automated tools here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see 3-4K edits as being ridiculously high (heck, 10K for somebody who uses tools and easily do 1000 edits in a day isn't necessarily ridiculously high.) First, for somebody who uses tools, most of those edits require minimal thought and don't show how the candidate approaches subjects---so most of them, I simply discard. I want to see manual edits (or to use a great example, tanathalas stands out in my mind as a person who used tools, but when he came across an article needing help, he put the tools aside. In other words, looking at his edit history, he would make 30 edits in 20 minutes using twinkle. Then he would make a handful of edits on one article, it's related talk space over a longer period as he focused on the article. Half an hour later, he returned to twinkle leaving the article he had worked on in better shape.) Second, as for count inflation, it is only a natural part of our evolving. 3 years ago you had to be a pretty serious wikipedian to get 2K edits. Now, because of how long accounts have been around, 2K doesn't demostrate much any more. Think of it this way, I'm approaching my, um... birthday. When I was a teenager, I was most interested in teenage girls, and pretended to be interested in college girls, but anything over 25 was too old. In college, teenage girls was "jail bait" and my horizon expanded to maybe 30. Today, somebody in college, would be too young for me, but 30-40, no problem. As I mature, my expectations change. What I seek changes, and what I find to be too new/inexperienced changes. The same thing happens here on WP, as we mature as a community, our expectations are naturally going to grow. We are going to start to realize that people with just 2K edits, really haven't been around the block like we thought. We are now looking for somebody with more WP maturity. Again, while EditCounts is not a good guage for expertise, it is a moderate guage to lack of experience.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to realize that not everyone edits like you. In fact, most Wikipedians don't edit like you, and yet a lot of them would be qualified to be admins. Your dating metaphor doesn't hold up, because how a dating partner compares to you in particular is clearly relevant for whether you should date them, but how an admin candidate compares to you in particular is not very important. Unfortunately, many voters on RfA compare candidates only to their own editing style.
If someone has made 2000 well-considered, non-automated edits, I find it absurd to say they "haven't been around the block like we thought". Were most admins from 2003-2005 promoted under such a mass delusion of competence? Did we turn out to be dangerously unqualified? Should we line up to resign now? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you missed the entire point of the dating metaphor. As wikipedia grows, and the experience of the community grows, the expectations for what an experienced/qualified user are naturally going to grow as well. 4 years ago, when wikipedia was a comperable teenager, then the communities expectation was for comperable teenagers. 2 years ago, when wikipedia was a comperable college student, the communities expectations were for comperable college students. Now, that wikipedia is at a symbolic college graduate, it is only natural that the community will expect proportional experience. As the community matures, its expectations mature. That doesn't mean that somebody with less (or more) experience than the current community norm won't pass, just as a person in his 30's might date somebody in the 20's. In two years, a person who is seen as qualified today, will probably be borderline. It is the natural path of soceity.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When I was a new editor looking at RFAs, a good 20 months or so ago, I figured I'd have to get 2000 edits before applying, because that was what I was seeing in typical candidates (albeit I didn't check all that many and I couldn't figure out the archives back then), but nowadays the average has definitely increased. Sure, candidates can still get through with 2000, as there are many more factors than straight up edit count, but I'd estimate the typical candidate needs three or four thousand now. Useight (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of the metaphor is clear enough, the problem is there is nothing about it that necessarily makes it apply here. Even if that is the natural path of society it does not follow that is the natural path of Wikipedia or even if it were, that that is a good thing. If you continue your argument and Wikipedia has 15 years of history and proportionate experience is required from all admin candidates, fewer and fewer candidates will qualify. Especially relative to the number of editors and readers. That's not a good thing. Eventually the demand for admin tasks will outstrip the supply. Keeping this place going requires that enough admin tasks are completed which with growing demand either requires extremely high production from some admins or more admins. Since you can't count on the former, the latter is the only solution. So I don't think the rising expectations are natural or good, more that they come from the difficulty of removing admins so which causes enough people to vote more and more conservatively. - Taxman ^Talk 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For clarity can you expand on that last statement - it seems to make no sense; when you say "so enough" do you mean "therefore" ? Or do you mean that because it is difficult to remove admins people will be more conservative in voting - if so that seems totally bizarre - surely RFA would be more liberal if there was an easier desysop process? Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right my wording was not so good. Apparently also the choice of conservative wasn't good. What I meant was if it is difficult to remove admins, enough people will withhold support from or oppose more candidates. That can be defined as voting more conservatively. I also re-factored a bit above more for clarity. - Taxman ^Talk 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Evula, as you guessed, by "experience" I did in fact mean "time between the first edit and Rfa". (Thanks for seeing through my inclarity.) I think that time since the first edit, to some extent, does matter in Rfas. It takes time to study up and understand the policies and guidelines. You can't just edit non-stop, there have to be pauses where you're taking in information. So I would guess that the length of time you've been in the community would have an effect above and beyond the edit count. as you pointed out with your example. I think the user who'd been around for three years would probably have a much more thorough, internalized and organic perspective of the Wikipedia community and its norms than a productive editor who stormed onto the scene. It might even be useful to try to map out a third correlation beyond the two I already requested: overall edit rate (i.e. edit count divided by time since first edit) vs Rfa success rate.--

the Orphanage

04:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Another metaphor, when my great grandfather was alive in the early 20th century, he had an 8th grade education, but was successful (until the Great Depression.) An 8th grade education in the early 1900's was acceptable. My Grandfather had a HS education, but was a full colonel in the Air Force (until he was kicked out for not having a college degree.) One didn't need a college degree to succeed. My Dad it took my dad a college degree to get doors opened for him. They are now saying that our kids will need graduate degrees to obtain what the current generation obtained with college degrees. Expectations rise. I differ with Taxman in that I do believe it is a natural process of organizations. Whether it is good or not is up for debate. It could be argued that rising expectations are also part of the cycle that eventually leads to an organizations collapse. The corelary being htat higher expectations limits new and innovative ideas, the status quo becomes the norm, and stagnation sets in.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be a problem of difference-of-philosophy with regard to what an Arb's 'qualifications' actually ought to be. The 'level of education' expected or required of an admin will depend on the tasks which we expect him to perform. That eighth-grade education is just fine for mopping the floors and painting the walls. Rolling back vandalism, blocking vandalism-only accounts, and closing clear-cut 3RR cases are routine household maintenance that anyone of of sound judgement and a modicum of Wikipedia experience can handle. On the other hand, I've been an admin for years, and I'm sure I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what our current, correct procedure is for reporting and deleting a copyright-violation image. (I might go rogue and just delete it, though....)

To my mind, the key requirements for any adminship candidate are but three:

1. Demonstrated familiarity with the purposes and goals of Wikipedia. Candidates must show in some way that they 'get' what we're supposed to be doing here. Writing a Featured Article is one way, but not the only one. I'd give credit to someone who spent a bunch of time copyediting, or who did good work wikifying new articles. I would even give credit to someone who spent a substantial amount of time at AfD, as long as their comments were insightful and constructive.
2. Demonstrated ability to work with others. This has two sides to it. A candidate should be able to engage other editors civilly and courteously. The candidate should be able to express himself clearly and coherently. The other side is the ability to respond correctly to unreasonable editors. An admin who uses his tools will, at some point, face loud, obnoxious, unpleasant opposition; this opposition may range from simple childish vandalism of a user page to an ongoing campaign of stalking by an obsessive sockpuppeteer. A candidate must have demonstrated the ability to calmly respond to obnoxiousness. These first two criteria implicitly include an ability to participate in a properly-formatted threaded discussion.
3. Demonstrated sound judgement. Where the candidate has brought issues to AN, AN/I, AfD, RfArb, what-have-you, has he done so at the correct time and for the right reasons? (That is, does he use our bureaucracy to improve the encyclopedia, or to manipulate things to his own ends? Do his choices tend to increase or decrease drama?) Has the candidate demonstrated an awareness of situations where he is in over his head, and a willingness to seek assistance in such situations? Does it seem likely that the candidate would misuse the buttons?

That's it. What is adminship, really? It's access to a couple of extra tools. I don't have to know that a candidate is familiar with all of the circumstances under which a page may be deleted. I just have to know that the candidate will ask if he's not sure. An admin – particularly a newly-minted admin – is more of an apprentice than a journeyman. He should be aware of his limitations, and be prepared to seek the advice of more experienced editors before digging himself into a hole. None of us can be expected to know everything about how Wikipedia operates anymore — and such knowledge absolutely shouldn't be a prerequisite for adminship. When it comes down to it, admins are still just hall-monitor/janitor hybrids. We still have the

WP:AN for on-the-job training. A metaphorical four-year degree just isn't necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Age of account is the measure I use, simply because it's posted in Mathbot's report when a candidate posts their RfA. Other than editors who switch names, it's a good measurement of when a candidate first stepped into the role of someone who plans to improve the project. Editrate is a bit hinky, though, simply because lots of editors see their rate increase as they become more involved with the project in the months (weeks?) before their RfA. The progression trends toward editors saying "I can do more" and seeking the tools. So I would be interested in total edits-per-month/week/day versus edits-per-month/week/day for the 90 days prior to the RfA. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else questioning the sucess sign " + " down at the bottom of the graphs by July '07?--Koji† 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's Citicat, who had the lowest edit count for the entire month. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Citicat had 3K edits. Looks like maybe August 2007 instead of July to me. Darkspots (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Mikegodwin, with 103 edits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah-ha! That makes sense. I was begining to question the accuracy of the graphs.--Koji† 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And he still doesn't have 250 edits!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we ban him? After all, an admin with such a low edit count obviously has no clue whatsoever... :P –

talk

) 22:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking, you could make a lot of administrator actions without ever editing the 'pedia. Oh, the irony of that in context of everything else. --Izno (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's only one data point, so it's probably not totally screwing up the data, but you might want to remove Mike Godwin's RFA from the data set, as he didn't actually pass RFA, but was, in the end, given the admin bit as a Foundation action, not through the RFA. Not a huge deal, but it is such an outlier....--

the Orphanage

07:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-related topic

I'll use this thread to draw attention to my recent little analysis tool, uContribs, as seen here. I think this solves some of the concerns discussed here as far as assessing the editor's true contributions. First, it combines page and talkpage counts; this is important in assessing the overall contributions in article space. Second, it allows separation of overall and "recent" edit counts; this gives a look at what the editor has been doing lately; Third, it groups non-main edits by "families" to give a look at the project spaces where the editor is focussing. And fourth, by inspection of the beginning of the curve, it gives a sense of the "long tail"; in articlespace, it becomes relatively easy to see whether the editor is a vandal-fighter - they will have a low "most-edited-articles-num-edits" count and lots of edit-counts below the cutoff - and conversely, a serious article editor will show a different tail-count, and a different page/talk ratio.

I bring this up as a question - should I make these uContribs listings a standard part of RFA's? I.e. create an accompanying RFA/name/contribs page? Also, I have the framework established to look a little deeper, as in how many edits were simple reverts (bot-tolerant), how many edits were then reverted, how many links were added (referencing freaks = good!), how many of various types of tags added/removed, and so on. Would this type of analysis be of interest at RFA? Franamax (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• That sounds good to me. If people need something they can check quickly instead of checking the contributions, it sounds good for this to be available. It'll probably still misrepresent things at times, but it's way more informative than a four or five digit number. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say that a short paragraph objectively describing contributions of a candidate (sort of like MathBot in prose) would be helpful in the nomination statement. I think if you add these statistics as a subpage, or to the talkpage like mathbot, they'll end up being mostly ignored (like I imagine the mathbot stats are). Prominence is key in this particular case if you're looking to influence behavior at all.
  ^T
  17:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure that the mathbot stats are ignored. I almost always check the talk page of the RfA before talking to look at the user's stats. Maybe a "mathbot in prose" would work well on the main page, as long as it's not too long. Malinaccier (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The main benefit to the Mathbot stats is that they are a snapshot of the editor's edits when they started the RfA. When looking at someone's RfA #2, it's useful to see where they were during RfA #1, and a static page helps with that. Moving such stats, even in prose, to the main RfA page would encourage a bit of editcountitis, but knowing an editor's areas of focus is valuable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome contributions and comments for this new proposal to attract editors. Thanks Secret ^account 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I always have and still do maintain that the drop in contributors is because we have fewer "easy" problems to fix that a passing visitor would see and think "hey, I could improve that"; it's less likely a passing visitor would decide they could improve this than this, and that's a pattern repeated across all the high-traffic areas. (Until you see them for yourself, it's hard to appreciate just how bad most Nupedia and early Wikipedia articles were – it's less than five years since this was a FA). IMO ten good contributors is better than 20 adequate ones or 50 bad ones; would Myspace or Facebook provide people who'd improve our content as opposed to just adding to it? – 

iridescent

21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, (and I think I've seen this number before), do we have data showing not just the successful RfA's, but also the number of RfA's opened by month, the number snowed by month, the number withdrawn by month, and the number failed by month? If that data is more favorable, and suggests a more sustained volume of editors trying to pass, but failing, then the debate may not be about bringing in more editors, so much as bringing the threshold for the mop back down to the lower historical levels of a couple of years ago. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I'd be particularly interested if the recent updates to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship has achieved its objective of guiding some of the 2,000 - 4,500 edit candidates into delaying. ϢereSpielChequers 19:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to me adding this to {{

No objections here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about 'crats indenting !votes on RfA's. One of the crat's suggested opening up the discussion here to get a broader view on people's input, but rather than having two parallel discussions, I want to direct people who wish to comment here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are four RFA's on! And they're all green! I never thought I'd be saying this in my life... bibliomaniac15 00:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Give it time...

^T

00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A new user just put up one that got SNOWed out. Operation:Holy Crap lasted all of 12 minutes :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

November seems to be the month for successful RfA's. This month last year there were 56 promotions including 6 on the one day (the 14th). Are successful RfA's seasonal? Euryalus (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Last year about November time, a dev said they were going to open up page creation to anons and then everyone got nominated and supported to deal with the anticipated deluge. (Thats my slant on it anyway) Woody (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank god they didn't. That would've been... hideous. Ironholds (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Lots of other projects are open to IP page creation and don't have a massive problem. There's a lot of good IP editors out there. They aren't all vandals or completely clueless :-) –

talk

) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The ones who have a clue can probably find

WP:AFC. Other projects don't necessarily have waves of vandalism as lunch-hour works its way across the western world. Franamax (talk

) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, some pretty poor candidates made it through. Well, one did, anyway (grin). Perhaps all those elected in anticipation of IP page creation should stand for reconfirmation...? </humour>

Bencherlite^Talk

08:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Then there was a sudden lull right after that. That's when I slipped through. Useight (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Limiting it to user accounts isn't to say "IP editors are all clueless idiots" but rather to keep out the lazier of the vandals and dissuade them with a few more hoops to jump through. Other projects have IP page creation, yes, but the en-wiki mindset is different; a lot more people speak English than say, German. German wiki might be vandalised by people from Germany/Austria and people from outside the country who know the language. We're vandalised by people from Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the chunks of other populations that speak english. Ironholds (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

<---Back to the point. Yes, it's something where we get impressed with a total of four RFA's. Certainly the landscape has changed a lot. Over my (excessive!) time at RFA I've seen things wax and wane but it certainly feels that the last two months has been particularly quiet if taken in the context of the last two years. It pretty rare to see a zero weekly figure at the sign post for example. Pedro :  Chat  08:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, if the software could be altered to have some kind of junior "admin", one who had rollback and could only block accounts under a week old, so many more of these guys would sail through. I guess that won't ever happen, but it would be a good way of empowering vandal fighters without the worry that some multiple FA writer is gonna get blocked by one of them for "edit-warring" against some IP troll. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking perhaps of unbundling the tools? That's one of those

WP:PEREN discussions that for various reasons (cultural and technical) is unlikely to move forward. Pedro :  Chat 

09:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I suppose something like that would probably need to be imposed on our chattering rabble, or else proposed by someone high up in concrete terms, as otherwise it would get swamped by frivolous opposition and drowned by minor alternatives. For that to happen the need would have to be so great that it began to bother someone like that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As previously posted here by me, stats prove that September 2008 was our worst month for promoting admins since useful records started. October showed something of a revival, but rates are still well below long-term trends. Hence my standing offer to nominate more unusual admin candidates. I'm gradually returning to Wikipedia after a break and plan to resume nominating soon - I have a small backlog of potential RfA candidates. If you, or someone you know, could do with a nom, drop me a line.

In the meantime, I urge all RfA contributors to focus on the essential element of RfAs - "do I trust this candidate with the tools?". Which is not the same as "is it possible this candidate will make mistakes?" (answer - we all do) or "is this candidate an ideal RfA candidate?". Gauged on the latter two questions, I should have failed both my RfA and my my RfB. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "my" twice btw :-) As when I vote, I prefer to support people, and mostly do, since opposing always tends to give the place a bad atmosphere, even if an oppose is warranted. I tend to keep my language in my opposes polite and helpful to the candidate, and sorrowful, since I am indeed sad I feel the need to oppose a user. –

talk

) 13:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My my. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, Dweller. ;) EVula // talk // ☯

// 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yes. We all make mistakes apart from members of Category:Wikipedians that are always right! --Dweller (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We have three candidates all on like 99%, does anyone want to take a photo, so we can cherish the moment. It's been a while. — Realist² 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wait

There are now FIVE, count them FIVE rFA's and they are all green... and all have a respectable number of supports!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's official; the internet is obviously broken. Something has gone wrong in those tubes out there. Its the end days! We'll have green RfAs, Arbitration cases dealt with within 20 minutes of being posted, Kurt and A Nobody voting support, plague, war, famine... Ironholds (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's 7 in a row I believe (excluding NOTNOW, and SNOW closes).

iMatthew

01:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Apocalypse is coming four years early!!! Xclamation point 01:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Or one hundred and four years early depending on if you're a Priest of Syrinx. Ironholds (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

wait, did I miss something Kurt voted support??? Do I need to update my rapture insurance?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, I'm afraid. Besides, the rapture won't be too bad; plague just hasn't been the same since he caught AIDS. Ironholds (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Kurt has voted support in the recent past ([2]). Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And another one. The end times indeed! Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

and I have another that is in the works that I think should do fine.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we should throw up some RfBs. Nah, that would ruin it :p. Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Although, I do think you used the right verb---throw up---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe peoples opinions are changing in regard to voting at RfA ever since it was singled out that less and less editors are being given the mop and bucket. That maybe one explanation as to why the support % is so high but i hope its the fact that these candidates have been just not BOLD enough to go through RfA and are as worthy as anyother in the past. There was a time when it was a hell hole and many editors would oppose for reasons that would not be accepted in this day and age like "i just dont think he needs the tools." 211.30.109.24 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting bores people to tears. Talking about how to do it is much worse, and proposing a process in which we'll talk about how to do it ... well, if anyone is still reading, I'm shocked, but then again, if you've got that much dedication, you just passed your first test. Please see

Copy-editing bores people to tears. Talking about how to do it is much worse,: and pProposing a process in which we'll talk about how to do it ... well, if anyone is still reading, I'm shocked, but then again, if you've got that much dedication, you just passed your first test.run-on+awk. Please see

send/receive) 17:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC) ed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail

) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just gotta be so darn pedantic, eh? bibliomaniac15 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

All that, and you missed the apostrophe abuse? (RfAs, unless you're talking about something that belongs to the RfA) -- Gurch (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And to think that they actually say that there ain't enough copyeditors on Wikipedia to go around... -

Mailer Diablo

13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – debated once again

Pedro, I'm sorry, I'm not clear what you meant, you asked for some discussion about a signature to start here. - Dan

He's referencing people voting per "trust in the nominator" as compared to the candidate. The former is never a good idea, the later is. While certain people have developed a reputation for vetting candidates and having solid judgment, the !vote shuoldn't be based upon the nominator's signature. It's not fair to the community, the candidate, or the nominator. (Although it is flattering that people feel that way, it is a mistake for all involved.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was less than clear. BM is quite right. Your RFA was starting to lean towards a debate on supporting because of the nominator and I wanted to nip that in the bud as it's not relevant to your RFA and will only be a distraction. BM is also totally correct that who the nominator is (what I meant by my "signature behind the nomination" comment) should not matter whatsoever. I'm not so naive, however, as to think it doesn't influence any given RFA to a degree - however I can't think of any RFA where it would have made any difference to the outcome. My intention was simply to head of a discussion that should be here and not on the main page. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly influential, particularly on nominations which aren't full of supporting diffs. It's easy for a would-be nominator to look at tool reports and say "candidate has 10,000 edits over 2 years, hundreds of edits in most namespaces, has clean block log, has clean user and talk pages, has created 10 articles with 1 GA as seen on the user's talk page, etc. etc." without delving into the real history to see if he's contentious, has a history of getting reverted, etc. A nominator with a good nomination-reputation will "get to know" the candidate, either by looking carefully at his history, by being his coach, or by interacting with him over time. When a nominator with an unknown or negative nomination-reputation makes a nomination with the exact same verbage, it's up to the RfA participants to do the deep research on the candidate and point out that he is or is not well-behaved and trustworthy. In the case of a recent RfA made by a nominator with a good reputation, I just spot-checked things with the tools and read a few random diffs over the past few months, far less research than I would if it were an unknown nominator. The spot-checking was because even the best of us can miss something. I trusted that the nominator did all the hard work before making the nomination or that he had other reasons, such as knowing the candidate over an extended period of time, to believe a full background check was not necessary. I would not have as much faith in an unknown nominator to be thorough. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who mentioned the nominator in said RFA, it was only an aggravating factor towards my supporting. I do have another rationale. I'd surely never support "per nominator". –

talk

) 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I have supported per nom in the past, in similar circumstances in the future I'll make it clear that I'm supporting for the same reasons as the nom, not totally relying on their research. ϢereSpielChequers 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that "trusted nominator" is not a bad reason to be part of a support. I also think "per nom" is not a major issue - it simply implies that you have nothing else particularly to add and that your support rationale is in agreement with the nominators (as indeed any per editor x support is not a bad thing). Supporting solely because of who the nominator is would clearly be a bad thing but I doubt it happens that often - certainly not enough to affect an RFA outcome. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we already discuss this already? GlassCobra 08:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time we had a thread here that hadn't been discussed already? – 

iridescent

15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We rehashed a conversation on this talk page? Never! Surely RFA talk is a hotbed of originality....Maybe not. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That must have taken far too long to write... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit, the wikicode! It burns!

Garden

. 23:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect Pedro, why did you send this conversation here, knowing that we had an identical one just a few days ago? I'm not seeing any new points, and it's not like people will be changing their opinions. Some people put more faith than others in certain people nominating, and some put more stock than others in the nominator's status, ie. being an admin or not. We can talk until we're blue in the face about the benefits of nominations from certain users, but I doubt it'll change anything in that regard. GlassCobra 09:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Better here than on the guy's RFA was the reason for sending it here. Better nowhere at all obviously :) I'll stick a resolved tag so we can get rid of it. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually see this as a tad different question... but that's just me...209.55.84.23 (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't even make sense. If it weren't a matter of people building up a reputation in the RFA crowd, we wouldn't care about nominators. We trust admin noms over non-admin noms because we trust that admins have a better understanding of what is desired in admin candidates. There are editors, like Balloonman, who have put a great deal of effort into building up a reputation within this community; editors who have written in great detail what their votes mean, and that would be pointless if the expectation weren't to have people trust in that vote when making their own. Editors, like Pedro, have put a great amount of effort into building a reputation within the community by being outspoken and drawing attention to themselves. If these editors who have put so much effort into gaining the trust of the community when it comes to RFA now stand up to say, "No, don't have that trust in me," then there's something we need to be questioning. If it's not a good idea to trust the nom, then take a seat and let the candidates nom themselves.

I see where you're coming from Jennavecia, but that wasn't my intended meaning so apologies for the lack of clarity. I'm not saying "don't trust my nominations" or "ignore any trust you may have in me". I'm saying that supporting soley because of who the nominator is can be a bad thing. Supporting in part because of trust in the nominator seems perfectly acceptable. Pedro :  Chat  08:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

When I decide to participate in an RFA, I usually don't give any weight to the nominator. (or lack of one) The exception was in Juliancolton's RFA. It's always impressive when the nominator opposed in a previous RFA. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasons not to trust the nom

Ok, I do spend a fair amount of time developing my reputation here at RfA. Why? Because I take it seriously and I do want people to know that when I !vote, I do so for objective reasons (I can only think of a few where it is personal, and I declare those.) I would be lying if I denied that I take my reputation here seriously (and am trying to rectify mistakes.) That being said, it does bother me when the sole reason for somebody to support a candidate is solely per nom---especially when it reads to the effect of "Trust nom 100%, support." Or something similar. There are reasons I don't like it:

1. It isn't fair to the candidate. Utimately, we are weighing in on the candidates, not the nominators. The candidates are the one's who should be reviewed---not the noms. Now, I would be lying if I said that a persons nominator doesn't impact my personal review of the candidate. Giggy or Pedro's candidates will have a shorter review than somebody I've never seen before. But if you vote per nom, then you aren't really saying anything about the candidate.
2. It isn't fair to the community. Again, we are weighing in on the candidates, but this is for the communities benefit. If you vote per nom, you aren't helping the community decide who should.shouldn't be a nom, you are placing the fate in the hands of one or two individuals.
3. It isn't fair to the nominator. By supporting purely upon the nom, or even 90% thereon, you are putting a lot of pressure on the nom to vett candidates. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but you add pressure to the nom in the event the candidate fails as an admin.

But here is the real reason I don't like votes that read like they are solely based upon the opinion of the nom. Follow this hypothetical chain of events. UserX has had a great string of successful nominations. Ten candidates in a row have passed with over 100 supports each. People trust UserX and are voting because of his tract record. UserX nominates a candidate who is marginal, but probably deserves the mop. UserX nominates candidate because he believes the candidate deserves the mop, but isn't sure of the outcome. UserX is surprised when that user gets 100 supports and no opposes. UserX is now feeling like s/he could push anybody through the RfA process, and nominates somebody else---a person not qualified. They pass based upon UserX's reputation, not on their own merits.

Now, if a person passes because of their nom, not their own merits, then that does the candidate, the community, and the nominator an injustice.

I know that some will try to read stuff into this, so I will state it up front. No, I have never nominated somebody who I didn't think should be an admin---but I have nomed a few people I wasn't convinced could pass an RfA. There is a difference. Being a good admin and passing an RfA area different beast. I've also had people sail through the process that I thought would have problems. Happyme22 and Jclemens are two candidates that I expected to see more opposes (due to the contentious areas they work in.) I've also saved RfA's that might have failed (Aervanath's being a recent example.) Again, I fully believe that Aervanath deserves to be an admin and will wield the mop effectively. DHM is a case where I fully believe the candidate should be an admin, but didn't think they should pass an RfA. My criticism of voting per nom, stems in part due to that RfA... I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I could write a treatise on what I learned from that RfA without ever mentioning the main controversy!

There is a danger in supporting per somebody else without doing one's own due dilligence. I've rambled long enough...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, hypothetically speaking, if there's a nominator who spends his free time beating kittens to death with 2x4's, I wouldn't trust his judgement. On the other hand, if Jesus nominated someone I wouldn't hesitate to support without reviewing the candidate in the slightest. Although that's kind of an un-realistic scenario because Jesus would probably just bypass the RfA and +sysop the account himself. And as a side note, if someone like Jason Statham ran for RfA I wouldn't even read the nom statement, instant support.--Koji† 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Suerly

iridescent

17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno,

Founder look provincial and easy to obtain. Jclemens (talk

) 17:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Man did you just kill my April 1st 2009 gag..... :( Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Run it anyways, no one read this.... Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the above users would likely never be able to !vote because their accounts would be blocked by trigger happy admins at UAA before they even got a chance to make a single edit. But I digress. When people vote per nom they are usually indicating that they simply agree with the nominators thorough assessment. I think it's only a select few who actually support/oppose based on the signature. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman - may I ask a blunt question? Well, I do hope that answer was yes because I'm going to ask it anyway! ;-) Are you planning to run for bureaucrat in the future? This sounds weird, but that answer would help me understand your post above a little better. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I read it twice and I didn't read rfb in there (although its an outstanding example of such). I believe the point is more akin to vetting a candidate and saying why you support, instead of blanket !votes (which I brought up a few months ago, here). I've never liked the AGF support-sig (even though I do it more than most but lets face it, if I explained every single one of my !votes it doesn't mean the others will do the same and this brings me to my comment for BM...). Balloonman: per nom also means per the nomination that sums up how each one of us feels about the candidate as well. If the nominator has said all there is to say then a per nom is perfectly reasonable. Even though you've expressed a conern which has the potential to be troubling, its a 50-50 shot that a !voter has "actually" reviewed (or seriously gone over) the candidate. (I'm reminded of the RfA where we had to wait to !vote; didn't go over well but it did give us time to review: we're too anxious to !vote that most !votes are cast in the first few days as you know). /end rant Synergy 22:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Balloonman for RfB!

My question isn't an attempt to criticise Balloonman in the slightest - It's an honest question based on different peoples viewpoints on nominations. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you were, and I certainly don't want to give you the impression that its what I meant. Synergy 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Honest answer... no. I think my faux pas this past spring will condemn any chance I have of running for 'crat in the forseeable future (2 years is the minimum timeframe that I've placed on myself). I also don't think I'd pass because I suspect there are people out there who would oppose me because of my RfA standards. I also don't have the required experience... namely with names. (Although I have thought about working in that area, but it's not because of an intent to run.) I would, however, be lying if the thought has never crossed my mind... but to answer your underlying question, no this is not a pre-RfB speach. At this point, *I* would vote Strong Oppose if I saw an RfB with my name... I clearly don't have the experience necessary.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the answer Balloonman, the reason why I asked is because you talked a lot about reputation building when you nominate people and I wanted to get a further insight into what you meant by reputation. From what I can gather, you question seems to suggest that you like to know you have respect at RfA with a possibility that this reputation might lead to a successful RfB in the future. We have a number of users that have nominated a lot of people for adminship (I'd class myself as one with around 30 people nominated). I think a lot of people do nominate people to boost their chances at RfB - there's nothing wrong with that in the slightest, and you can sometimes tell by who they're nominating - people who they've had little interaction with or hardly know yet they've spent time scouting them out and reviewing their contributions. The reason why I do it is slightly different, and I believe there's a few others out there who nominate for the same reason - I honestly feel proud when I see someone I've nominated making a good call, or commenting on one of the admin boards. The people I nominate are generally people I've had some interaction with so I know exactly what they're like. When I see an admin working well that I've nominated, it fires me up to nominate someone else. Now, there's two different philosophies there of why people nominate others - both are neither right or wrong but I suppose the underlying reason does need to be considered when you do a Support per sig comment at RfA. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, for me, I am a gen-x military brat raised by a baby boomer military brat. Other military brats probably read that and understand where I come from. But I was raised to take pride in what I do and to know that your word is your bond. When you say or do something, it is your reputation that is on the line. That is why I said, I work to build my reputation here. I want people to know that I don't take this half heartedly, but make an effort to find and critique quality candidates. (Most of the people I look at I don't know, because I'm not as active in the project as I used to be, which means that I have to look harder/longer at candidates than I would otherwise.) But I like to look at different area of the project to find candidates---or find them when they come to me (which seems to be happening more and more.) I also want people to know that when I oppose, it is never personal. But this is a subjective area... and as a subjective area, nobody is perfect. While I may try my hardest to properly vet a candidate, it doesn't mean that they are truly qualified. Which is why I really hate the !votes that say, "I trust the nom's, support." The "I trust the nom" !vote is different from the "per nom" because the later says "Per the nomination, it said it all" where the former says, "I don't have to do a review because I trust the nom." I don't want people to trust ANY nom so much that they are !voting based solely on name recognition. That is IMO wrong.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, for anyone considering RfB, I had little recent experience with the username policy when I ran at RfB - for which I was rightly criticised. However, my RfB passed because, I presume, people trusted me, on the basis of my track record of applying other policies and user interaction, to apply the policy properly when I passed, something I hope I've done in the x hundred edits I've made in the last couple of months to the various Crat namechange pages. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And that's the thing. I don't think people consider the ability to learn when they consider their opinion in an RFA; there seems to be a dangerous belief that once a candidate is an admin or a crat, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. It makes me want to rip out my hair every time, because candidates are way too pressured to do this or do that so that they can get their hands on a mop that they should deserve in the first place. Experience is important, don't get me wrong, but trust, judgment, and the ability to learn and adapt is really what adminship is all about. bibliomaniac15 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On the flip side, you don't give a person a driver's license based upon the potential to learn. Or a diploma before they have demonstrated certain skills/attributes. You don't give somebody a blackbelt who hasn't shown proficeincy in all of the forms. Before granting the mop is the only time that the community has any input into the candidate and what they need. It is before the RfA that candidates should show that they have the skills/ability to learn the tools. If a person doesn't take the time before their run, who is to say that they will do so afterwards? I remember a few months ago somebody was running for admin for the second or third time. When they were challenged about a deficeincy, they said, "I plan on addressing that first thing." Well, the problem was that it was the same area they were criticized during their first RfA. If they failed their first RfA because of a specific issue, and failed to address it by round two, why would we have any faith that the person would get that experience after passing the rfa? Now, I don't say that happens with everybody (or even most) but if there is any concern, you can't enforce campaign promises after awarding the bit.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone said this in the wall of text above, maybe not. Don't assume that when someone supports "per nom" they mean "per nominator." Much more likely, I think, that they mean "per nomination." Endorsing the argument for adminship in a nominating statement is not blindly supporting based on the person nominating, its saying "Yes, I agree with what that person has written and don't find it necessary to repeat it." That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in my mind, and I'm not sure why we occassionally get such opposition to it.

But you also see, "I trust the nom" or "Trust the nom 100%"---when you see that it implies something different than per nom.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mhm. Keep in mind that no nominator is truly 100% spot on with his choices; blind-supporting a nom isn't the right way to go. Though it seems like i'm pretty much piling on at this point. Wizardman 04:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Balloonman raises a valid point. Although a college looks at who wrote a student's letter of recommendation, and an employer looks at what positions a job applicant's references hold, Wikipedia admins are a different lot. We have the ability here to see everything a nominee has done and said. Nominees should be judged on their own merits, not on their nominators'. Supporting on the basis of who nominator creates a sense that the supporter hasn't actually looked into the nominee's statement, answers or history. That's not good.

As an aside, I am curious as to why one wants or nurtures a reputation at RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you? For any area of the project, if you enjoy working in the area, why wouldn't you want to develop a reputation for solid work/contributions? It doesn't matter the area, but whereever you work, I would think you would want develop a reputation of knowing what you are talking about and making sound decisions in those areas. It doesn't matter if you are talking RfA, AFD, BLP, FAC, GAR, etc, I would think one's own desire to do their best in the areas where they contribute would drive them to nurture who they are and how others perceive them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, a little pet peeve, I've seen at least two recent RfA candidates post Barnstars to EVERYBODY who supported or voted in their RfA... I do not like this trend. Thankspam is bad enough, but to do so in the form of a Barnstar is worse. I wouldn't mind a barnstar for the nom or somebody spectacular comment, but to give one to every single person reminds me too much of the Award Center garbage that plagued wikipedia a few months ago. barnstars should be given for exempliary activities, not just because somebody has !voted in an RfA. Next thing you know, we'll be giving barnstars for thanking 20 users, or reporting 20 users to AIV...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would get a lot of barnstars then...but seriously, you are correct. I just regarded them as thank-spam in another form and decided to ignore them like I ignore all thank-spam. If someone thinks they need to put thank-spam on display, so be it. SoWhy 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

They're essentially the same as thankspam, so if used alone I suppose they're not bad, I guess. However, if you give somebody a barnstar and a regular thankspam, that crosses the line. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If thankspam is to be deprecated--or is generally disliked--it might be good to start a discussion about it. I spent a fair bit of time this afternoon doing it because I perceived it to be an expectation of a successful candidate, much like similar traditions I've known elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with thanking people.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankspam in the form of a Barnstar is a very bad idea, and is something I think should be immediately depricated. As it says at Wikipedia:Barnstars, barnstars are issued: to reward Wikipedia contributors for hard work and due diligence. Thanking someone for their vote with a barnstar just reeks; to allow this is to water down further the significance of the Barnstar. Unschool (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've not displayed such barnstars on my Barnstar page since they are essentially worthless. You think this is bad; I had one user I had to have words with a few days back who decided that because they got some happy news in their personal life, it was appropriate to give out barnstars to all and sundry regardless of contributions. They gave them to people including 1) users who hadn't contributed yet 2)a chain of sockpuppets and 3)me, despite the fact that I was currently in the process of telling them off for giving out stupid barnstars. Ironholds (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens (congratulations by the way) that a discussion about it would be a good idea. After reading various negative comments about thankspam, I didn't do it. Maybe some editors felt disappointed with me, I hope not.

talk

) 06:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is never wrong to say 'thank you'. Especially if one is thoughtful about it; the meaningful thankspam, I think, is something fairly general for everyone, but also personalised where appropriate. E.g. "Thank you for !voting in my RFA. I know you opposed, because XYZ. I want you to know that I have taken that on board and will do my best to address your concern." //roux   06:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that anyone giving out low value barnstars merits a polite reminder as to their value. As for Thankspam, or unpersonalised Thankspam it is perfectly in order to opt out of it on your talk page. If there were a consensus to deprecate thankspam from new admins then the appropriate page to update would probably be Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#Closure. As this thread might actually result in a change to RFA it would be against tradition to keep it on this page; can I propose we continue the Thankspam discussion over there? ϢereSpielChequers 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars are pictures on a website. They have no meaning. I've been given barnstars for things that took half an hour and nothing for things that took ~10 hours, get over it -- Gurch (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

While not quite as cynical as Gurch, I also agree that the barnstars are not worth as much as people seem to make of them. If they were something awarded by community consensus, that would be something, but as it is its awarded as one editor to another. Everyone has their own standards. The community trusts me enough to give me the admin bit, yet I've only ever been awarded one barnstar (for my work on

the Orphanage

11:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar worth is just personal preference. Nobody can "cross the line" (as Jclemens put it)with them. To me they're just the Wikipedia equivalent of a high-five. To you, they might be important enough to... oh I dunno, argue about on WT:RFA for 9 hours.--Koji† 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would just appreciate not receiving thank you spam. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Many would appreciate that. I think something like allowing the candidate to write something in the Signpost (e.g. a thank you note to all who voted, a general message about being promoted). A short and sweet message in the "Featured and admins" section in the signpost seems more reasonable than sending thank-spam to 60-100 talk pages.

iMatthew

15:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I never understood why people were so offended at someone saying "thank you" in a friendly way. Baffling. Send me as many thank-yous as you like, I don't mind. –

talk

) 15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

While barnstars don't 'matter' as such, they are subject to certain conventions, e.g. that they represent some sort of achievement (however minimal). Voting on an RFA, I think, does not qualify. While handing out barnstars to your RFA voters may seem like harmless fun, the risk is that it may encourage newbies to support a candidate (or even oppose them) just for the sake of receiving a barnstar, rather than because they've seriously assessed the candidate's merits. That doesn't exactly seem like a desirable outcome. Terraxos (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't mind thankspam, I don't even mind people using "boxes" or formatted thankspam that resembles barnstars, but barnstars themselves fall into a category with some conventions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman. I like to see personalized messages, but barnstars for something that is trivial, like !voting in an RfA, is going a little too much. Xclamation point 17:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two lines of thought I am seeing here that are completely missing the point of User:Balloonman's original post.

• Some editors are saying, Barnstars are just not that big a deal, get over it. While I wouldn't mind arguing this point, it is not the critical issue. The critical issue is this:
• Other editors are saying, What is wrong with someone saying 'thank you'? It is these editors who are missing the critical point here.

Let me ask these editors: Would you want anyone participating at RfA for any reason other than wanting to provide sincere input on editors' qualifications for the mop? I'm sure you would say "no". Given that, can you recognize the fact that at least some editors—be they newbies or awardoholics—who might participate in RfAs just so they can get a pretty Barnstar? That is the issue. The lure of a Barnstar (because for some people, they are alluring) should not be a factor in a person's participation in an RfA.Unschool 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I would've liked 60 people more contributing at my RfA, being as they'd only get a barnstar if I passed:P. In all seriousness; agree completely. I disagree with saying "barnstars are worthless anyway" though; it depends who gives them out. If you have a reputation of giving them out like sweets then your barnstars are worth diddly-squat. I was lucky enough to receive a barnstar from Balloonman a few months back (admittedly for screwing up) but being that he himself admits he's given out around 3 and he is a highly respected user the main reaction of users has been "oh rly? nice". The point I'm trying to get across is: barnstars can have meaning if they come from users with a reputation for 1) being accurately able to judge someone and 2) being discriminate with their barnstars.Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've only ever given one – does that make mine the most valuable on Wikipedia? – 

iridescent

19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. If we're looking at barnstar/edit ratio, quite possibly. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great. Now someone's going to set up an exchange rate. I can just see an underground black market for barnstars - with Iridescent's as the holy grail. Useight (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely Jimbo's would be the Holy Grail; he's sent out (as far as I'm aware) even fewer than Iridescent. You can trade five Iridescent barnstars for one Jimbo star, or 10-15 balloonman stars. Ironholds (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Useight) Sorry about that--you've found my Achilles' heel: I can't follow

WP:BEANS worth beans. ;-) Jclemens (talk

) 20:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was only kidding around. I guess the problem is that I'm not a big fan of putting smiley faces at the end of my sentences. Perhaps I should end my attempts at humor with </joke> or </humor>. Useight (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not whether Barnstars are universally regarded as having great value or not. The issue is that there are going to be some people who would be motivated to drop in on RfAs because they hoped to receive a Barnstar. And that is a piss-poor reason to have people commenting at RfAs; in most cases, we'd be better off without such input. I think a move should be made to officially depricate the post-RfA distribution of RfA Barnstars. Unschool 21:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that is an issue. Anyone who needs to show off such an "award" does not automatically make a less valid contribution to RfA. If they do make good contributions, it actually helps the RfA and if they don't, the closing crat will not take their !votes into account anyway. But trying to forbid any form of thankspam is not really helpful. As I said before, most people ignore the form anyway and those who display them as awards have to know that those viewing their user pages will think their part about people who think this kind of spam award-worthy. Regards SoWhy 21:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with thankspam, in general. Seems like a decent courtesy. My problem is that giving a thumbs up or a thumbs down at an RfA does not constitute a valid reason for receiving a 'barnstar', which, as I said before is supposed to happen: to reward Wikipedia contributors for hard work and due diligence. Most votes on an RfA are made by people who just cruise by and jump on whichever side's comments appeal to them. You know, there might actually be a just reason for giving out an RfA Barnstar, but it should be for those individuals—a distinct minority—who actually make a regular practice of digging into editors' edit histories before passing their judgement. Those people are the leaders who deserve the recognition, not the drive-by voters. Unschool 21:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I've always thought that thankspam was rather silly. A few personal notes to participants in an RfA who present particularly thoughtful, detailed, and constructive comments (positive or negative) would be much more valuable than useless templated notes across scores of talk pages. I suppose that it has the advantage of padding the failed candidate's edit count (Ooh! This editor's good at communicating, because he has hundreds of User talk: edits...), but I see no purpose to it at all for successful candidates.

As for the barnstars, I assume that the recipients are capable of assessing their value and displaying them (or not) as they see fit. If they're being given out by failed candidates, it probably helps to demonstrate that the community made the rigth call; their judgement hasn't matured yet to be given the tools. If 'participation' barnstars are being handed out by successful candidates, I suppose we can just hope they'll grow into the job. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, guys. Seriously? I'll be completely honest: I don't understand why this is such a big deal. I designed Mizu Onna Sango's thankspam as a fun thing for me to do, at random decided to tack on a barnstar to it for decoration. I didn't intend for the barnstar to be obviously included with the thankspam (I had placed a link in the template) but apparently Mizu wanted to and that was her perogative.

Barnstars are a warm fuzzy- they're fun to recieve and it feels good to give them. I've given and gotten barnstars for more and less work than voting in an RfA. I got a barnstar recently for teaching someone how to sign the lyrics of a song. The idea of placing prerequisites of how much one has to work to recieve a barnstar both reeks of elitism and sends a message to newbies that getting a barnstar is a big deal and that number of barnstars is in any way telling of the quality of contributions. It isn't, and you guys know it. People can be totally useless and have tons of barnstars because they're popular. Don't degrade one of the few absolute good Wikipedian traditions by placing restrictions on it.

And just for a little perspective: I didn't send out thankspam when I passed RfA, not because I cared about getting it, but because I was too busy trying out my new tools. How about ya'all go find something else to bureaucratize, and leave barnstars alone already? L'Aquatique[talk] 07:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I obviously don't agree with everything that User:L'Aquatique says, her overall wisdom is worth listening to. Regardless of our differences on this matter, it cannot be denied that there already exists a huge difference in the way we issue Barnstars, if indeed we issue them at all, and that's never going to change. Barnstars are a good thing, and no control system is going to make them better. I'm normally a big believer in Liberty, and L'Aquatique just caught me with my pants down. Mind if I turn around and cover myself now? Unschool 07:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, I disagree with most of what L'Aquatique said. To be clear: I am not saying that we should (or even can) forbid people from giving barnstars for very minor things, but still I feel that what was done in this case is not a good example to follow and something to be generally frowned upon. There are other ways (e.g. giving cookies) of being nice, polite, fun and "warm and fuzzy". Barnstars are supposed to be a reflection of hard work, of having done something quite substantive and praizeworthy, certainly more substantive than simply voting in a given RfA. Cheapening barnstars to an equivalent of a handshake and of simply being polite is, IMO, a negative and unhealthy trend, that should be discouraged, not encouraged, and the fact that many other people use them as a "warm and fuzzy" and "fun" equivalent of saying hello is not good a reason to emulate them. It is something that, like the insane proliferation of userboxes, increases the myspacy aspect of Wikipedia and also cheapens and devalues those barnstars that are in fact given for hard work on improving encyclopedia. (I had given, I think, a grand total of 3 barnstars, to users with whom I had little or no interaction, but who, in my judgement, did something quite substantial and praizeworthy for the project). Giving a barnstar for RfA voting is particularly problematic, and designing "personalized" barnstars named after a particular user somehow makes it even worse. In fact, maybe it is time to introduce some new type of a more meaninful barnstar, say where a barnstar would have to be supported by several users (say 3-5) in order to be awarded. On the other hand, I think that regular thankspam is fine, although it'd be good to have a system for opting out from receiving it. Nsk92 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, Nsk, and prefer other forms of thankspam to barnstars as well. It's just that setting up a control mechanism (i.e., a rigid policy) would probably do more harm than good. I mean, what are we going to do to someone who gives out RfA Barnstars after we prohibit them? Block them? On their first day with the mop? I prefer just letting people know that I personally take Barnstars seriously, and that I encourage them to not be capricious in their decisions about when to issue them. And at the same time, I don't want the Barnstar Police to be checking up on me anytime I issue a barnstar. Unschool 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. As I said, we should not (and in fact we can't) try to forbid people from awarding barnstars for this or that, and policing such things is neither desirable nor possible. But I do believe that devaluing of barnstars is a negative phenomenon and it should be discouraged whenever such matters are discussed (such as in this thread). As a practical matter, I don't think there is anything one can do, other than maybe introduce a new form of a barnstar awarding which would require agreement of several, rather than just one, editors. Nsk92 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I happen to like RfA participation thank you messages (I will not call them thankspam, than you). Thank you notes are always nice and make both parties feel better. Cookies (or biscuits) and tea are even better. A thoughtful and cogent vote, or even a comment, in a RfA takes time and energy, if done through diligent reading of the person's edit history and opinions expressed by others, especially the nominator's. It's also a shame that the oppose votes seem to sometimes have more meat and sometimes are more interesting that the support votes. I wade through them as well. Not that I participate in RfAs extensively, although I keep intending to. A general thank you note to all who participate and a specific thank you to someone that went out of their way to provide more than normal useful constructive feedback would, I think, be a Good Thing^TM. But barnstars should not be given out for just normally participating in a RfA, as it could be perceived as buying RfA participation. Balloonman's mention of the Award Center situation rings very true. Steak knives or toasters would, however, be acceptable (JK). I think we have enough rather less thoughtful votes in RfA so that we don't need to encourage any more. As to unwanted RfA thank you notes, or after reading them, just delete them from your talk page. It's not a big deal. But no guidelines or policy on this please, there's enough already. BTW, Balloonman, I've reported more than 20 vandals to AVI and I use Huggle and Twinkle, and have rollback. Where's my vandal fighter barnstar? :-) — Becksguy (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the manual on RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstars specifies that one must issue either 2000 Twinkle warnings or 2500 Huggle warnings, plus personally report a minimum of 142 vandals to AVI. Keep working. Unschool 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... *fires up Huggle, starts handing out warnings left, right, and centre*. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

And that, my friends, is the case against rigid Barnstar regulations and Barnstar Police. Smile! Unschool 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Clearly the person sending out the thank-spam or thank-barnstars is very happy and wants to share their good feelings. If it makes them feel good to spread their cheer, my page is always open for such jubilation.

talk

) 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars are just a way of expressing thanks or recognition for something done by an editor. I'm rather surprised that such a big deal is made out of simply saying "thank you" to someone. I agree with L'Aquatique, naturally, and I have no problem with simply giving thanks, even for something like an RfA—I really appreciate the fact that so many editors took an hour or so out of their busy lives to look through my contributions thoroughly and decide whether or not I was worthy of the tools, and I don't see what's wrong with thanking them for that. —

Barnstars are just a way of expressing thanks or recognition for something done by an editor? Actually, according to

WP:Barn, barnstars are to recognize hard work and due diligence. It goes on to talk about please make sure that your choice is fair and appropriate, which will help prevent over-use. (emphasis added) It further states, Remember that there are other ways of showing simple appreciation to someone to which it mentions cookies and other personal user awards. The barnstars all include language such as, "outstanding," "Excellent," "significant", "substantial", "distinguished", "particularly fine", "greatly and positively", "exceptionally," etc. I would clearly state that handing out 100 barnstars for simply !voting in an RfA is the epitome of "over use" mentioned in the introduction. There are other ways to recognize thanks. Giving a barnstar to everybody for simply supporting an !vote, is devaluing every other barnstar sincerely given for people's hard work and effort.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon

04:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar is an image. It's a collection of pixels, nay, ones and zeroes, arranged in a way that is symbolic to us. Barnstars themselves are meaningless without the context of the mindset of the person viewing them. If I went up to someone on the street and handed them a printout of the barnstar I designed for Mizu, they would give me a weird look and walk away. Barnstars are meaningful to us because they are an important part of our culture. We remember when we first joined up and we saw someone who had a whole awards case full of barnstars, and thought how cool that was. They bring us back to the first barnstar we recieved, the first one we gave. Getting a barnstar is the Wikipedian version of a Bat Mitzvah; an initiation rite that means we have been accepted into the culture. To a non-Wikipedian, they mean nothing. Balloonman- if barnstars are truly a cherished insititution for you than other people recieving them should not change that.

I got my first barnstar for rewriting an article: took me about a week of intensive work and I honestly thought no one even noticed until one day someone came along and gave me a barnstar. I was ecstatic. Two years later, I'm an admin and I design barnstars. I understand more than most the importance that barnstars hold, but I don't understand this argument about "preserving their sanctity". I hear a lot of arguments like that and they usually indicate that someone is trying to take my rights away. Not this time. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: Currency is an image. It's a collection of images on paper, nay, dies and colors, arranged in a way that is symbolic to us. Currency itself is meaningless without the context of the mindset of the person viewing them. If I went up to someone on the street and handed them currency that looked like play money, they would give me a weird look and walk away. As to your point about the first Barnstar you received... I too remember my first one. It was for work on the Military Brat article, which I spend weeks working on. When I received it, it was meaningful. The value was deflated when I realized that the person who gave it to me, gives away barnstars as if they are going out of business--Sharkface217. Barnstars are meaningful because you have to work for them and be recognized for going above and beyond. Cookies and other awards are given for everyday activities. How would your perspective on Barnstars be different today if, rather than receiving your first barnstar as recognition for hard work on an article, you were given one for doing something trivial that 100 other people received the same barnstar for. If every Admin Candidate gave a barnstar for simply !voting, then in a matter of a few months we would have over 5,000 barnstars awarded...and I'd have 40-50 barnstars. What value would any of those barnstars have? Do any of them say, "You did a good job, thank you for your hard work?" No. What impact would it have on giving out other barnstars/awards? After 40-50 meaningless barnstars, would the one presented for getting an article to FA be as meaningful? Saying thank you or even giving a cookie or even a custom designed award is one thing, calling it a barnstar, which is supposed to be for expliary work devalues the recognition. Mizu wasn't the only person to give a barnstar this week for !voting, and I am not targetting Mizu's actions. I just want to nip this trend in the butt. Giving barnstars for merely !voting is going to make giving the award less valuable than Sharkface's Award Center ever did---at least the award center set some standards.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's not much here to quibble about, IMHO. Barnstars have no actual value, and their meanings can vary widely. Disregard barnstars you don't like and display the ones of which you're proud. To each his own. Kingturtle (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So how many barnstars do I need to exchange for an adminship? -

• It's not how many barnstars you have. It's how many edits you perform discussing inane, fatuous topics like barnstars. To all who actually care about the subject of badly given barnstars; you're telling us there's nothing more important to do with your time than discuss this silly subject? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm at work ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• While I most certainly agree that awarding a barnstar simply for participation at a discussion is a little bit superfluous, remember that
  Talk
  ) 07:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not condemning all thank you's and even encourage creativity. This is one of my favorite thank you's I've seen in a while. Thankspam <> Barnstar.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that said "buttocks" so I was worried for a second. — CharlotteWebb 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nine yellow ones, nine red ones, and ten blue ones. — CharlotteWebb 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)