Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 3 April 2009

Archives

2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

current time: 16:32:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

User:DougsTech

From the top of this users contributions:

1. 20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ 2 ‎ (→Oppose)
2. 20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ged UK ‎ (→Oppose)
3. 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 ‎ (→Oppose)
4. 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Al Ameer son ‎ (→Oppose)
5. 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa 2 ‎ (→Oppose)
6. 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Someguy1221 ‎ (→Oppose)
7. 20:22, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto ‎ (→Oppose)
8. 20:21, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto ‎ (→Oppose)

All of the votes are the same comment:

Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk)

Should these votes be allowed? I personally think they should be indented, the user is clearly making a point. iMatthew // talk // 1:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, DougsTech seems to be basically a vandal fighter when he's here. Month here, month there - lot's of AIV and reporting User names. Not what I'd call a regular or big content contributor, but I don't see anything wrong either - everyone is entitled to their opinion and !vote. Perhaps he's just not aware of how many admins are not active, and sees a "total" rather than who's actually doing the mopping up. Either way, I don't see a reason to strike a vote, I'm sure whoever closes will take the "whole" picture in perspective. — Ched ~ /_© 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Honesty only bothers me in a rationale if the honesty itself is a blatant display of bias ("I never vote for Australians"), because that's an open invitation for others to join in the bias. There are a lot of voters who nearly always support, and none who nearly always oppose, so I don't think it does any harm. Maybe DougsTech can be persuaded to tell us why he doesn't want more admins. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your opinion here, Dan; it's a legitimate opinion to be holding, though it's a shame when worthy candidates suffer because of it. Also, thanks for notifying the subject of this discussion when the original poster didn't have the class. GlassCobra 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, glass try to assume good faith, just because the original poster didn't notify the subject of the discussion doesn't mean that the original poster "didn't have the class." He may have forgotten or didn't think about it, it only lacks class if you assume the worse in motives.---I'm Spartacus! 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spartacus is right, I completely forgot. But thanks for the bad faith accusations Cobra. iMatthew // talk // 10:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect DougsTech's opinion, of course, but this seems rather WP:POINTy. –Juliancolton 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a pointy and rather lame rationale to oppose someone. Prima facie, anyone? OhanaUnited 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's very clear he hasn't even bothered to look at the candidate's qualifications, and for him to go on claiming that he's doing "what the community is looking for" is absolutely preposterous - if the community didn't want more admins, we'd have shut this down or you'd see a lot more opposes. With only one current RfA in the "danger zone" of less than 70%, I don't see how that's at all a justification for this sort of biased commenting. Hersfold 05:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

He's nothing but the next Kurt Weber. Look where that got Kurt. Let the 'crats decide, and stop giving him attention. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a legitimate reason to oppose. I don't agree with it, in fact I believe the opposite, but I'm not about to start indenting opinions I don't agree with just because I consider them wrong. Townlake (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Although there are many elements that help RfA function ... crats, attentive "regulars", well-wishers, coaches, etc. ... there are two groups that we absolutely can't do without, or RfA collapses in an instant: we have to have a steady supply of suitable candidates, and we have to have people who can oppose convincingly and not come off as dicks. About 75% of what makes RfA work doesn't happen at RfA ... it's the fact that people with dodgy pasts take one look at what happens at RfA and stay far, far away, and that will only continue to happen if there is solid, persuasive opposition on some kind of regular basis. But people rarely come off as brilliant opposition in their first opposes, so I really try to be friendly with new opposers rather than slapping them down. I think the history of RFA supports this approach; opposers tend to write better rationales with time, if given a chance. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What I've learnt in the past few years here is that these people rarely seem as consistent and patient as Kurt was with his prima facie opposing. I suspect this !vote, like many before it, will die out soon enough. Just don't feed him. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's a legitimate, though inaccurate, reason to oppose. If Dougs believes we have too many admins (and he will not be alone in this) then the opportunity is for discussion as to why he believes this. In passing, I've generally felt that it's allways non-admins who seem to think we have too many administrators. Now this is, of course, interesting. It may be an element of self-preservation ("don't de-sysop me - we need more admins") or it may just be that admins look at the backlogs and struggle to agree that we have a surplus of people wielding the tools.... There is a difference, of course, between people with the tools and people using them but that's another thread. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• That's a nonsense reason to oppose (not to mind being downright wrong) and I am sure the bureaucrats will give such !votes the appropriate weight. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• It's certainly an assertion for which statistics that can be easily found contradict. However, we've agreed on the open nature of the forum at RFA, about the freedom of comment that accompanies it; so, so be it. As Stifle says, we have the 'crats for a reason and they're wise enough to give DougsTech's remarks the weighting they require. —Anonymous Dissident 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If supports based on the opinion that there "aren't enough administrators" are counted, why should this not be counted? Not everyone will agree, but it's a legit position to take. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is every opinion that you disagree with IMatthew to be discounted in this way? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Point is an abusive of a process. Making the same vote based on a philosophical view cannot be a point. Perhaps it is SOAP, but only so if they have it on their profile too. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We can all agree I think the !vote is POINTy and not constructive. I don't think there's any need to indent it, though; the crats are (I hope) intelligent people and will be able to see that these comments don't count for much. (I just noticed Anonymous Dissident saying the same thing above, too.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't all agree with that. And for the love of headcheese, can people stop using "POINT" and linking to WP:POINT, when in fact no disruption is taking place. It's the most overused/wrongly used shortcut on Misplaced Pages. I have two-thirds a mind to go RfD that bitch. Smiles! Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, stricken and changed "all agree"...my fault for not having read the whole discussion before commenting. Anyway, I still think it's pointy (sorry, can't think of another way to put it)—he's not voting on whether so-and-so would make a good admin, but whether there should be admins at all...and specific people's RfAs aren't really the place to be voting on that. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong. It may be that's he's trying to make or prove a point. However, there is a difference between "making a point" and "making a POINT" (as some people would say). --Ali'i 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And another non-POINT point: newbie opposers are the least likely people on Misplaced Pages to get love, and the people whose absence would make the whole thing collapse in rubble the fastest (assuming they hang around and get smarter and more dedicated to the process). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he is not voting on "whether there should be admins at all". If you read what he actually said, you'll see that his position is that there are too many admins, something I happen to agree with. The opposite of "too many" is not "none". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, voting on "whether there should be more admins". Better? Now feel free to talk about the substance of something rather than looking for things to nitpick over. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think that clear thinking and an honest appraisal of your opponent's argument is "nitpicking", then I'm afraid that I have nothing more to say to you except that I find that attitude to be offensive. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Please forgive me if I don't get too worked up over being called "offensive" by someone who has been blocked numerous times for incivility. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is less about the specifics of this vote (it's not a popular opinion, but it's far from completely delusional); and more about making blanket votes across all active RfAs pushing the same point - while it isn't quite the classic "WP:POINT", it is bordering on being disruptive to get attention for your view. An opinion like "We have too many administrators" the more specific thing that DougsTech seems to be getting at "We should remove old administrators before voting in new ones" is something that should be probably raised on a policy level (whether it's here, or at the village pump, or via an RFC) rather than by making specific votes on RfAs. For better or worse, an RfA kind of needs to be an assessment of an individual candidate's suitability, and I don't think it's very helpful to oppose based on a policy point that particular candidate simply cannot change. ~ mazca 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was tring to say, only you've worded it better. !votes like this are votes for or against a policy, not for or against a candidate.

I remember during the Arbcom elections there was someone opposing every single candidate with a rationale like "Arbcom is a farce and needs to be gotten rid of." Does anyone remember if a consensus was reached about that person's voting? It might be relevant here as well. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the other non-RFA edits concern me, such as issuing a 4im vandalism warning for an edit that really doesn't look like much of vandalism, let alone the need for a 4im warning. MuZemike 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech got blocked 72 hours once in August 8, 2008 by User:Hersfold for "repeated abuse of scripts and circumvention of preventative action". I'm not sure what constitutes as "abuse of scripts" but issuing 4im looks like it's along the same line (except this one is abuse of templates). OhanaUnited 20:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The bureaucrats aren't stupid, and when Doug is the only user opposing a certain editor, or even if he isn't, they won't take his comments into consideration, considering all of its rebuttals. If you're still concerned, perhaps the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard is a better place to discuss it than here. Jd027 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that only works on the assumption that the comments made by him are invalid. Commenting at RfA isn't like a private members bill; you don't need to get a certain number of "per" votes for your comment to be considered valid. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the bureaucrats weight comments appropriately, the key word being appropriately, and that even though he can oppose on any merry grounds he likes, in practice, his comments aren't going to make or break anyone's RfA. Jd027 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. People that oppose my vote do not seem to really be opposing what I am saying, but rather how I am saying it. Remember, it is not your job to decide consensus (unless you are a bureaucrat.) --DougsTech (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, for the record, I oppose both the way you're carrying out your vote, and your reasoning behind it, but it's still your choice to make that vote. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Dougs I am "opposing" what you are saying, not the way you are saying it. Perhaps you can bring this conversation back on track by demonstrating exactly why there are "too many administrators". Evidence would give more weight to your comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many admins. You as an admin should know how to find this. You should also read what I have typed above and in various places. DougsTech (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No Dougs. You should back up your comments with evidence not vague "look above" (I read above - there's nothing demonstrating your reasoning at all ) or "look in other places" remarks if you want people to take your comments seriously. I can only assume that as you can't be bothered to give the community the benefit of your wisdom as to why there are too many admins it's because you don't actually have any evidence. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Wow, Doug, that's helpful. "Why are there too many admins?" "Because there are too many." rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000." DougsTech (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And all the lesser courts suddenly disappear? Cheers. I' 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Supreme court justices compare, very very roughly to something like ArbCom, or maybe Jimbo. Not admins. Poor analogy. --GedUK  22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that this morning on your talk Dougs, but I dismissed it out of hand as not relevant. Nice assumption of good faith by the way. What on earth has a "supreme court justice" got to do with Misplaced Pages? Many editors invited you to expand on your rationale, yet instead have you have acted like a petulant child. Shame. A lot of editors have sympathy with your point of view, that there are too many admins - yet you've managed to undermine your own argument not support it. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin who merely reviews the requests and rarely actually votes, I honestly don't care about DougsTech's votes, and I don't think others really should argue it there. The problem is the attempts to argue about that on the requests page, where it is clearly irrelevant there. DougsTech, could you try to force the issue outside of the requests page? I know it's not your responsibility to stop others from posting there but I think it would be more productive for everyone that way. Simply add "and go to my talk page (or this page or wherever) if people want to argue it" or something. I feel bad for the people requesting adminship when their RFA go off into tangents like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and is it really any less POINTy than someone who says "oppose because doesn't meet standards in my user space"? Those sometimes are equally impersonal (1 FA, 3 GAs, 3000 edits, etc.) and is that really checking qualfications? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, but who is saying such opposes are acceptable? Majorly talk 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps all of these kinds of discussions could be brought to an end if it were possible to state categorically what the accepted standard for becoming an administrator actually is. Right now it seems to be little more than "I've made lots of friends, I haven't upset anyone, I've served my time at AfD, I've made sure that my last 1,000 edits were done manually, and it's three months since my last RfA." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dougs, the guys do at least have an argument (and it would be up to ArbCom, not any of us, whether it's a good argument) that if you oppose every single candidate and say "too many admins", that that's worth a ban from RFA. The argument would probably go: the CIVILITY policy says you'll get in trouble if you tell every RFA candidate "I hate you, and no I don't have to have a reason, I just hate you". Well, I don't know if denying someone a mop does actual harm, but it does more harm than calling them bad names, so if you'd get RFA-banned for one, why wouldn't you get RFA-banned for the other? I don't know if that would fly, but maybe you see now why people are a little uncomfortable with the idea that "there's nothing they can do about it" ... there actually might be, depending on how you explain yourself and whether it's consistent and how long it goes on. And guys ... RFA-newbies are just as confused by RFA as WP-newbies are confused by WP. Please don't bite; he's probably not here to destroy us all. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: What you're suggesting is pretty much impossible :) Majorly talk 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Impossible, maybe, Unworkable, likely, Controversial certainly. But I agree mostly with Malleus' comment - however this seems to be for another thread.... Pedro :  Chat  23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise that. It was just, y'know, a dream. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read the thread a couple of times and still can't see why DougsTech's !votes are a problem. People are welcome to oppose or support for whatever reason they like, provided they don't engage in personal attacks, introduce obvious falsehoods or similar. An !vote with limited rationale, or one that appears to be replicated across many RfA's without reference to the particular candidate, might' be given less weight by the closing bureaucrat compared to a specific and well-documented one. A broad-brush !vote with limited attached detail is also unlikely to sway many others, so will probably have little effect on the overall RfA outcome. But there's no reason why either of these reasons should stop someone making such a !vote. "Oppose, too many admins" is the same as "Support per nom" - its someone's opinion, they're entitled to it, it will be given appropriate weight in deciding the outcome. For what its worth I don't agree with DougsTech, but his posts are neither "point-y" nor unreasonable as a personal view. Euryalus (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And per Danks55's comment above, I'd argue "Oppose because I hate you" is a personal attack, while "oppose because the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" is a general point of view and not a criticism of any current admin. Euryalus (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one is really saying Dougs can't make these comments - he is more than entitled to - but if he wants them to have any actual effect he would do well to justify his statements with some research and proof. Until then he may as well state "Oppose - because the sky is not polkadot". This is the issue this thread (used to be) concerned with. Pedro :  Chat  23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And, as an aside, if Dougs' reasoning is indeed that "the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" (which does seem to be a very accurate summary by Euryalus), then I propose that we block all account registrations on the basis that with ever more editors we get more and more diverse and contradictory views. Pedro :  Chat  23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One week ago today, I got on at around 15:00 UTC. There were twenty-two outstanding requests on WP:AIV, and all but three were blatantly obvious, needing almost no thought before implementing a block. It is not uncommon for six or seven of these likewise obvious reports to pile up, and CAT:CSD routinely reaches 150+ pages. Yes, we definitely have too many admins... </sarcasm> J.delanoy_adds 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So they were easily dealt with, no big deal. Where were the other 1,500 or so administrators while you were toiling away? What's the advantage in having another one who isn't there either? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J.Delanoy. The problems of occasional inconsistent decisions caused by two admins responding to the one issue, are less than the problems caused by not enough people to respond to outstanding tasks. There are many mechanisms for people to seek a second opinion on specific admin actions, especially if they are inconsistent with the commnon approach. By contrast the only mechanism to deal with too few admins to respond to vandals and nonsense pages, is more admins. But thats just my view, others are welcome to theirs. Euryalus (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A slightly off-topic response to Malleus Fatuorum - a totally amateur analysis of admin activity suggests almost everyone who becomes an admin is pretty active in the months immediately after their RfA, after which there is natural attrition. Some return solely to daily editing, others specialise in one particular admin role, many simply stop editing Misplaced Pages or reduce their involvement over time. This is exactly the same, and for exactly the same reasons, as other editors. Hardly anyone who was an editor in 2003 is here today as sprightly and busy as they were back then. So surely new admins are needed to replace those that move on, just as new editors are needed to keep the overall encyclopedia growing? Where were the 1500 other admins when J.Delanoy logged on the other day? Doing something else, like the millions of other people who have edited Misplaced Pages at some point in time but aren't logged in at this moment. Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have 1,500 admins; we have 400–800 active admins, depending on what you consider "active". –Juliancolton 01:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How many admin are needed for AIV? How many instead hang out at IRC or ANI instead of doing anything major? Adding more admin wont fix the problem. Culling the over population now and letting people know that if they don't use their tools in needed areas and instead waste away causing drama that they will be desysopped. Don't feed the already obese system. Starve it until it corrects itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you prepared to name the overpopulation? bibliomaniac15 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We could start here. As jdelanoy stated, there is a need at AIV and yet you are busy making responses in a random forum. You were granted the tools because the community had a need and trusted you to use them properly. If you were doing so, as with most admin here, they wouldn't have time to be chit chatting. A backlog? Yet where do we find all of the free time to hold such discussions? Come on. If you want to claim there isn't a glut don't sit around like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, J. Delanoy was giving an example about the past. AIV only has two entries right now, there's not a backlog. And bibliomaniac is doing a lot more right now than just commenting on this thread. I think you're just trolling. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is no backlog now, then jdelanoy's point fails. If there is one, then my critique of the administrators here justifies that their responding shows that administrators are not doing their job. Either way, it only proves that we don't need more admin. It is nice to be right regardless of what is true or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is nice to watch you say such ridiculous things so I can wait for someone else to come call you out. I'm gonna go have ice cream. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ottava, but not all admins must work at AIV and other backlogs every single minute of free time that they have on the wiki. Maybe they're just popping in, like Biblio might have been doing above. Xclamation point 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never used IRC and haven't posted on AN/I for months, plus I regularly help out at AIV. So I'm glad I'll survive your obesity cull. I think you're confusing admins with paid employees - no one, not admins, not editors, not wikignomes is compelled to do anything here. People contribute however and as often as they feel like. Over time even the most prolific editor will slacken off, perhaps cease edting altogether. the same with admins, which is why new ones are routinely needed to replace the others. I also this thread has moved away from DougsTech's !votes and on to other topics, so I'll leave it here. Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, if you don't want to do the job for free, resign. If you are spending your time not working in areas that are backlogged but instead hanging out at places like this, then you aren't using your admin authority. Once the glut leaves, then we can start bringing in new people. To do otherwise will only make it seem like having adminship without cleaning up backlogs is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. It is acceptable. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So, in summary your argument is that we need more administrators who don't do any administrative work. Doesn't that strike you as even a little bit illogical? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never said anywhere in this thread whether I think we need more or less administrators. I would have thought such a good nitpicker as yourself would have noticed that. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Try to address the argument, not the editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait. who said we were arguing? I was just voting on some RfAs ;) --DougsTech (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

!voting. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is no backlog now, then then Ottava's critique of the administrators here that administrators are not doing their job fails. If there is one, jdelanoy's point is vindicated. Either way, it only proves that we need more admins. Sorry, couldn't resist. Everyone, get back to work already. :) - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, when Misplaced Pages starts paying admins a salary, then and only then can people complain about "not doing their job." This is, last time I checked, a volunteer project. Volunteer projects are dependent upon people volunteering their time, and people will do so where and how they want. Speaking of which, you are a content builder, what are you doing here and not working on an FAC? There are a lot more garbage articles out there that should be FA's than there are items on any backlog! Volunteers are needed in ALL facets of the community. And how ever, where ever somebody contributes is up to them. An admin who only uses his tools sporatically is still serving a purpose on a volunteer project.---I'm Spartacus! 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me like saying "we shouldn't have more police officers because there's enough of them already." Misplaced Pages is a growing community, much like your average city, and as such, promotes "crime" in the form of vandalism, which may or may not escalate in the future. Also, there are some administrators too busy with their own life to patrol actively, thus limiting the effectiveness of having 1000+ administrators. As others have said before me, everyone is entitled to their own vote, but I think that the votes should be based on the user's ability, not on something the user has no choice in. All else I can say is, I hope that he doesn't want to become an administrator in the future, in case someone counts this against him.--Iner22 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is all this relevant to RFA?

• This whole discussion makes me sick. The point of noting that Misplaced Pages editors and admins aren't paid isn't to suggest that people should suck it up or leave--it is the exact opposite. We rely on free labor, so we should build a community around the premise that what causes free labor to leave should be discouraged. Votes like the one above are reasonable...within limits. It's a perfectly reasonable point of view to say that there are too many admins on wikipedia. That could be debated by reasonable people. It is also reasonable to say that because there are too many admins, one more either isn't necessary or will be a net negative. That can be debated by reasonable people. It becomes unreasonable when it is applied indiscriminately to RfA after RfA--while I can be convinced that we shouldn't be promoting marginal candidates due to some alleged admin surplus, that isn't a reason to refuse to promote an excellent admin candidate. It is also isn't necessary to invoke a reason like that to refuse to promote a sub-marginal candidate. Application of that vote to every single RfA (not saying that dougstech is doing that yet, just posing some limit) sours the process and forces good people out. Prima facia opposes over recall pledges and cooldown blocks make the environment at RfA worse than it already is. We should strive to ignore those votes if possible, admonish those who persist in making them and if recalcitrance places us in extremis, we should be willing to escalate matters. Getting into a discussion over whether or nor there are enough administrators as a result of the vote is more than pointless--it is needlessly destructive. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and let's throw in the forumshopping angle too, with a twist. People who have been around have seen lots of forum-shopping and know what it is, but maybe haven't made the connection to WT:RFA. At ArbCom, people talk about bad admin behavior all the time, and they do hold many of the arguments that many of you are making in high regard ... for instance, it does make a big difference whether an admin spends their time improving the project or whether the admin spends all day chatting and not getting things done. The problem with bringing this up at WT:RFA is that it's impossible to know (both in theory and in practice) who's going to turn out to be a super-productive admin and who's a month away from leaving. Since it's a problem we can't solve at RFA, it's forum-shopping to bring all that anxiety here and dump it on us ... take it somewhere where it will do some good, people. The "twist" is ... maybe people are onto something, after all. We talk a lot about recall, and recall roughly speaking has to mean one of two things: triggering a reconfirmation RfA, or triggering a trip to ArbCom. Kingturtle and some others feel strongly that reconfirmation RfAs won't work at all. So maybe people who are saying "admins ought to be more productive, and I think that has something to do with RFA" are right after all ... maybe in limited cases for limited times, we should be setting up criteria so that if the admin doesn't perform, it triggers a trip to ArbCom? Is that what people were thinking, and how would that work out? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup ... after getting feedback ... hot damn, I think we're converging on a solution. Back soon. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• You know what makes me sick? The fact that a few meazly oppose !votes actually led to a big, long RfA talk discussion, when that time could have been better put to use for something more constructive - and dare I say, more interesting. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion to allow candidates to make statements on the 4th day of an RFA that ArbCom will probably consider enforceable; I know there's a lot to read because people are going to argue about unintended consequences, and we have to have these arguments, but there's no need to keep up with the arguments because no one really has a crystal ball, and we'll find out on the 4th days of RFAs whether this is working or not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's really no point in sitting around here discussing this !vote that's not going to make or break anyone's RfA, but if it's really that much of a concern, here's an easy solution: someone go around to each RfA and post a support containing the comment "Not enough administrators." Jd027 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this: are you out of your minds? These votes should be removed and the user blocked for pointmaking! Post haste! To say we have too many admins is either a) a bad faith attack on administratorship or b) a concern that does not belong here. Why is this even under discusion?--Ipatrol (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the lack of administrators (or lack of a lack) is not something for talk:RfA? Where would you suggest we take it, then? Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that the 'crat shouldn't take such a !vote into account if it is the deciding one. I don't know what Doug is up to, but I think it's violating WP:POINT. We're not trying to create an exclusive Patrician class. We could use all the help we can get from qualified candidates. This blanket rejection of all candidates and when asked for an explanation and getting this is nonconstructive. Perhaps Jd027's proposal to cancel out any of Doug's "too many administrators" opposes with "not enough administrators" supports would work, but then that may take away from a legitimate reasoned support vote (though a support vote doesn't need a reason as an oppose SHOULD have) Valley2city 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When someone added a support to your RfA without a reason, you didn't object to it, did you? The policy does not state that anyone must give a reason to oppose. The policy also states that ANY user is free to express his opinion. I think people may be angry that I am opposing their friend's RfAs, and making a ton of noise about it. When actually, it is well within policy. DougsTech (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it is much more acceptable to have a support without reason than an oppose without reason. "it is generally regarded as poor form not to explain the rationale behind the opposition as it does not give an administrator nominee useful feedback" -WP:GRFA. You may be within your rights to oppose the way you do, but do you think anyone is currently taking your !vote seriously? There seems to be near unanimous opposition to what your doing as you can probably see from everyone's comments Valley2city 03:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When you support, you assert that you agree with the nomination; as such, support is the default position. When you oppose, you are expected to provide a comprehensive and thorough rationale. –Juliancolton 03:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion reminds me of our old friend Kurt. There is no need to indent DougsTech's !vote. I trust the closing bureaucrat to take account of DougsTech's !vote appropriately. Axl ¤ 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

He does this for the drama. It is a loop-hole in the system, and he is exploiting it. I can see that Dougs is intelligent. He knows that no Crat will ever pay attention to his negative "vote" because of the carte blanche disapproval of anyone becoming an admin. Therefore a reasonable and prudent person could only surmise it is solely for his own amusement. However, it has now become a me against the world fight for him so the only solution (save him !voting negative on every RfA from now until Kingdom Come) is a policy change which will never happen. The whole situation is sickening. That's my opinion.--It's me...Sallicio! 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments appear to be inconsistent hyperbole. If you're so confident that bureaucrats will ignore DougsTech vote then what harm is done? What makes it "sickening" in your eyes? That DougsTech doesn't agree with your point of view? That's not sickening, it's intolerant. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clearer... I meant the fact that we have this loooonnnnng discussion over something trivial is sickening (despite that I am still feeding in to it). Just curious, though; what's inconsistent about my statement? And there doesn't seem to be any unrealistic and extravagant exaggeration to make my point as a hyperbole would suggest. And as far as the weight that the Crats will give to his negative-as-a-policy-statement !vote, it seems that my opinion and that of the community seems to be on point. My logic is fairly clear.--It's me...Sallicio! 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I note that a closing bureaucrat, Bibliomaniac15 has weighed in on the issue in closing an RFA yesterday. See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Smith609.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC) -- Source diff from the RFA:

  "As a result I carefully examined the oppose and neutral !votes. Disturbingly, several users saw it fit to oppose because of the "lack of a need for the tools." This should not be so; an oppose of this sort is so vague as to offer no constructive criticism to the candidate, nor does it indicate a serious concern in the user's ability or conduct. Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course."

• • Good to see a bureaucrat using their brain and not their calculator. Majorly talk 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • I applaud, bibliomaniac for making that decision, meaningless !votes should be treated as such.--Giants27 /C 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course he threw them out, did anyone here expect him to take them into account when making the decision? He is an admin himself, so of course he doesn't care for my vote. As I have said in the past, admins stick together. But that will not stop me from opposing them, we are all invited to express our opinion by the RfA.DougsTech (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I thought your whole problem with there being too many admins is that they work at cross purposes, contradict each other and deliver inconsistent results. Now you're saying they just back each other up all the time. You can't have it both ways, Doug. Reyk _YO! 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
          • He threw it out because it isn't a valid !vote. Surely if the rule is "admins promote other people, because they are all working in a little cabalesque club" they'd promote everyone when they could reasonably justify it. Your logic is faulty; "admins stick together" would be a fine theory, yes, but at the time Biblio made his decision the candidate wasn't an admin. It would be like saying "oh, well of course X is going to help Y become a member of the Alpine Club; they're both Alpine Club members you see, they always stick together". Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
            • (EC) DougsTech, I threw out your vote because it had nothing to do with the actual conduct or ability of the user. You have not managed to show why the users in question would be bad admins in the multiple RFAs I have closed in which you have blanket opposed. Quite frankly, that's disrespectful to the people who have submitted themselves for fair consideration by the community. I also disagree heavily with your oppose in that one, you have contradicted yourself as Reyk pointed out, and two, Category:Administrative backlog. From someone who does have the ability to judge your oppose and judge consensus, let me make it clear that your opinion will be discounted until you find a better, individualized reason to oppose. bibliomaniac15 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
              • If the vote is going to be discounted, can they just be removed? We need to be more firm about stopping nonsense seep into RFAs. We put up with it for too long with Kurt Weber. Let's nip it in the bud. Majorly talk 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The RfA record to date for DougsTech shows zero supports and all opposes (including the unparsed one in the link). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• • What a negative individual. Majorly talk 14:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, if my votes are to be removed, then you need to find some "nonsense" support votes to remove. Each oppose has an explanation of the users opinion...most support do not. I don't mind if a bureaucrat does not agree with me, I don't expect him to. He is an admin, and he is adding another admin to be on his side. What about this, I will oppose using this explination "Oppose per too many administrators, this user could only add to the chaos that takes place by the admins. Remove some admins before new ones are added" That seems good enough, even though my current oppose is fine.DougsTech (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The part of your argument that I question is this: if admins are trying to be some sort of power-wielding cabal, wouldn't we want to actually have fewer of us? That way we could keep the power concentrated in a very tight-knit group. The fewer there were of us, the more power we could each individually wield; therefore, you could support by the same theory, that the power needs to be distributed into more hands for the sake of checks and balances. A "when everyone's an admin, nobody is" of sorts. Useight (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, your "argument" is totally nonsensical, and has no place whatsoever on RFA. Majorly talk 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you didn't provide an explanation at all. These admins get mad when someone opposes and give a reason that they don't agree with, but don't say anything to those who support with a nonsense or no reason at all. DougsTech (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Typically, supports without explanations are considered to be a shorthand of "Support. I agree with the nomination." I'm not a big fan of them either, but they're a lot better than opposes that don't include a reason. That's why I always include a candidate-specific explanation (if you'd like to look, they're all here), and everyone is suggesting you do the same. Useight (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one's thought of WP:DNFT. --Philcha (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with WP:DNFT is that it assumes the troll can do no actual harm if you ignore him; unless all the crats who are closing RFAs sign on to the idea that DougsTech's vote doesn't count with the current rationale, Dougstech can sink your RFA. And even if the crats did sign on, DougTech could twiddle the rationale until they did buy it, without having any change of heart. I understand that this is a tough issue; maybe it will get simpler if we agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere ... if someone's rationale was always "Running for RFA is a sign of power-hunger, so I oppose", then a topic-ban from RFA would be appropriate, probably. So ... where do we draw the line, and which side of that line is DougsTech on? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We draw the line at someone giving a bullshit !vote with zero evidence to back it up other than "I just think so". Clearly, he's an opinion of one against at least a dozen dissenters above (and that's just who wandered into this argument). He's past the line; I don't know where Misplaced Pages RfA decided that "anything goes". This is a clearly inappropriate !vote by someone who is clearly ignorant about how Misplaced Pages actually works. Like Dan said, his argument can tank an RfA - I've seen as ridiculous shit happen many times before. Someone will misquote a candidate - or take something totally out of context - and call it "uncivil". Then ten other people who don't bother to research the candidate at all (kind of like DougTech) jump on that bandwagon, citing, "oppose per X. I don't like uncivil people." Enough. Enough. We need to remove the bullshit from Misplaced Pages before it irrevocably tips the project into the abyss of any other barely credible knowledge site. Will we let reason rule the day, or allow misguided and ignorant editors to cause the disruption that is clear here? Tan | 39 02:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally arbitrary break

What surprises me is all of the sound and fury generated by one editor's oppose vote based on a belief that there are too many administators. Surely everyone's entitled to their opinion, even those people you don't agree with? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So, then Malleus, I can oppose because an editor is Black? Gay? Straight? Left Wing? American? Actually that's a good reason. People are entitled to their opinion but certain opinions are not acceptable. I have no doubt you will throw back some clever words at me, but, frankly I don't care mate. Some people think that God Hates America beacuse homosexuals fight in their armed forces (to pick an example). Some people think that child pronography is acceptable as nudity should not be something to be ashamed of.
Malleus, you really need to wise up, get of the idealism horse, and learn that the right to epxress an opinion is not actually as cast in stone as you think. Certain opinions are not welcome - whether the context be Misplaced Pages or real life. And the opinoin of Dougs Tech, grounded as it is in fantasy, hatred of authority or whatever (but not grounded in fact) comes under the blanket "not an acceptable opinion" rule for me.Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far as I'm concerned you're entitled to oppose on whatever grounds you like, and that includes sexual orientation, political tendencies, or nationality. I likely wouldn't agree with you if you did, but neither would I try to suppress your opinion, or your right to express it. You may call that idealism if you wish, but I call it respect for the views of others. Racist arguments, for instance, need to be dealt with openly, honestly, and rationally, not by suppression.

However, what's being discussed here is nothing like as significant as racism; it's just one editor's opinion that there are too many administrators, and to conflate that with child pornography really does take the biscuit. Anyway, who appointed you, Pedro, as the judge and jury of which opinions are acceptable and which aren't? You may think of me as a hopeless idealist, but I have to say that I now think of you as a rather unappealing fascist. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that many sticks held together will not break as easily as a few on their own. But I still find your argument that "everyone's entitled to their opinion" laughable. I thought you knew Malleus that we are not, in fact, entitled to express an opinion here. Shame you're getting flamed here and at Misplaced Pages Review isn't it? Perhaps not calling people fascists would be a start? Perhaps stopping demoaning the "children at RFA" whilst acting like a petulant 5 year old would also help? Any how, as the sub header of this thread indicates, this really has nothing to do with RFA. Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What an extraordinary outburst. BTW, what does "demoaning" mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you've come down to typos as an argument - classy - didn't I see the same thing from you on WR when you were baiting Majorly over there recently? Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been close to meltdown for some time now Pedro, as others have noted. Time for you to take a break and regain some perspective? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ready when you are. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

← I think it would be best if you removed my name from that list, because I am of the opinion that for the last six months or so you've been acting like a complete dick. I don't think you've realised that yet though, which is why I'd recommend a break. In any event I have no faith in the recall process, and not much more in you. Please feel free to have the last word; I've said all that I intend to say on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is all of the above discussion really relevant to RfA? –Juliancolton |  22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Malleus, you have my last word. Even if you think recall is bust, I don't. If I've been acting like a dick then best I take a break. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of that? You can just ask for it back again whenever your temper improves. Deeply unimpressive. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For gods sake Malleus. Just step away for once. Synergy 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats one less. More admins should do the same. I wonder how long before he wants it back. Either way, I think he should go through a new RfA to get it back. This is definitely a step in the right direction. --DougsTech (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, one less person to delete articles that are pure personal attacks, causing hurt, taunting, classroom bullying etc. at 08:00 tomorrow. Good news all round I guess.....</sarcasm> Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were actually doing those things, you wouldn't have time to be here arguing. DougsTech (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, lucky for you, but bad news for the recipients of attack pages I'm now free of admin rights, so I can spend my time here instead. And thanks for disregarding my 8000 uncontested deletions Dougs. Cheers for that. Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, why has no one done anything about this blatantly obvious troll? Which real editor starts off their wikilife playing on huggle? Majorly talk 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech, I suggest you rethink that comment. –Juliancolton |  22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It follows my opinion of their being too many admins. He seems obviously confrontational, and instead of using any valid policy, he is arguing over another editors opinion. Admins should remain neutral in discussions concerning admins. Instead they jump in and back each other up. Sadly, the only way to stop this kind of behavior is by limiting the number of admins on the system. --DougsTech (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point to an example of Pedro being confrontational or "arguing over another editor's opinion"? –Juliancolton |  23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To be fair, I could probably find loads :) Mallues is right that I've been on the edge for months now. I think the points here are 1) this is well off topic 2) Dougs' "too many admins" line is mantra that he has totally failed to back up with proof (despite multiple requests) Pedro :  Chat  23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again I will copy and paste this to you, Pedro. Please read it and try to comprehend. This will be the THIRD time i have explained the reasoning behind my !votes. You can continue to say that I am voting without explanation, and you will still be totally wrong. "Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000." --DougsTech (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As you've said yourself, this is the third time you've talked about your reason. Unfortunately for that, other users have already commented on the false analogy with the judges as well as the apparent contradiction between admins sticking up for each other and admins contradicting each other. Besides, the number of justices in the supreme court is rather arbitrary. Seven would work just fine, as well as eleven. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Seven would work just fine, as well as eleven." That is pure openion, we are all free to express it, as you just have. --DougsTech (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That argument has already been dismantled. If you want to make a comparison to the supreme court your best choice would be comparing arbcom to it. But how many state, federal district or appellate judges are there in the US for the population of 300 mil? Nableezy (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That argument is totally valid. We don't have many different levels like that. We only have one group of admins. --DougsTech (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Participating in this discussion. Wow this is getting old. People need to move on. I cant tell weather its good or bad that my few opposing votes have created such a huge discussion. Certainly hope more people oppose on the same grouns of the number of admins being too high. --DougsTech (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Pedro being "argumentative" or "confrontational" in this thread: I mainly see him disagreeing with you. I should also note that while you continue to cast your oppose votes with your current rationale, discussions regarding said votes and rationale will continue both here and on your talk page; simply stating "this is getting old" and "People need to move on" won't end these discussions. Acalamari 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So admins are not allowed to express opinions any more? That isn't how it works. Any admin is entitled to voice his view in situations like this one. If they were to become involved and then use their tools, that would be a different situation. Please stop twisting things to suit your opinion (or one of your opinions, anyway; I forget if you have managed to reconcile the hypocrisy in your statements here and the oppose votes that actually started things off). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this conversation, first it starts with a terrific admin stepping down, then it ends with a (to avoid breaking WP:NPA, I'm making this a ENTER WORD HERE space), calling him "argumentative" and "confrontational", nice job DougsTech, everyone takes issure with your stupid !vote and you have to realize, hey maybe I should stop !voting that way and make individual votes, but I guess not.--Giants27 /C 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

←Someone was just weighing in on this in an irc channel, and it occurred to me that DougsTech either has a good-faith position, which is possible, or else he's a very, very clever troll, because he's managed to position himself very, very close to the dividing line for what would constitute bannable behavior ... close enough that there's guaranteed to be a lot of shouting from both directions (I got an earful in irc). In either case, the solution is to argue intelligently about where to draw the topic-ban line in general, and then figure out which side of it Dougs is on. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• My $0.02. I think most of us agree that DougsTech's opposes are unfair. However, we've gotten to the point where we all sound like a bunch of broken records. This has been discussed for weeks, and I honestly don't see what good further discussion will do. User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA applies, in my opinion. –Juliancolton |  00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The issue isn't "unfair" vs "fair". Who's to be the judge of that? It's simply about the supression of unpopular opinions. I'm somewhat sympathetic to DougTech's basic premise, but I think that he presents his case unhelpfully. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I am inclined to disagree. I mean, I don't think heaping abuse for the situation is warranted, but on the other hand, I think that there is correctly a level of presupposed premises involved in an RFA. One of them is that, by having RFA, we are saying we are open to more administrators. A vote that denies the premises of RFA is not one that I would expect a bureaucrat to take seriously. He's welcome to his opinion. But on the other hand, by positioning himself actively outside of the consensus view on the subject, he gives up a fair share of his claim to be contributing to the consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think that argument stacks up. Companies have personnel departments. They wouldn't have them unless they wanted people to apply for jobs. Misplaced Pages has RfA. It wouldn't have it unless it wanted people to apply for adminship. You attribute too much intelligence to the self-serving machine. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I must disagree, as well. RfA is to determine if we can trust an individual candidate with the tools. Unrelated discussion, such as whether or not we need more sysops, is irrelevant in my opinion. –Juliancolton |  01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

An honest question

An honest question if I may for DougsTech: Isn't it possible that administrators back each other up not because they are cabalistic, but because they trust each other to do the right thing? Or that they have actually balanced the rights and the wrongs of another person's actions and not found them wanting? There are obviously many things on Misplaced Pages that are not done with controversy, but when someone generally acts sensibly, they are !promoted to administratorship. Is it too much to trust that they will continue to act sensibly, even after promoting? Sure, feel free to treat them with distrust to ensure that they don't turn to evil-doing, but if, for all intents and purposes, they have not not evil-doing, then you should not say that they have.
When you say that you see 2 admins who behave differently with one user, why is it that you do not approach the one's actions whom you disapprove of? You think it worthless to say: "hey, was this really deserved?"? Do you actually follow through with the words that you've left here; the words that say you cannot find anything worthy of salvaging in people who, for-the-most-part, work to better the encyclopedia? I struggle to comprehend someone having such a willing disbelief in the human good... --Izno (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a few "incivilty" blocks would get your head thinking in the right way? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this has been brought up in the past. I was unaware of this until now. After reading User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA and the related documents, consensus seems to be that all users are free to voice their opinion, and it is up to the bureaucrat to decide consensus. I have stated my position many times. I am through discussing it, this is a complete waste of time. I am going back to contributing to the community that I intended for, and suggest others do the same instead of arguing over my !vote. If you dont like my !vote, counter it with an opposing !vote and state your opinion. --DougsTech (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you thought I was seeking re-explanation or argumentation, then you were wrong. It is saddening to me, that is all, and was seeking further explanation (which is not the same as copy-pasting nor the same as explaining your position in another way). You are free of course to discontinue discussion, but that would only leave a bad taste in my mouth. /shrug --Izno (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that was sarcasm... but I could be wrong of course. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

An idea for all... If you think DougsTech's opinion is unreasonable, why not ignore it? By constantly discussing it, you only guarantee that you're going to see more and more of it here on this talk page. This discussion really isn't proving productive at all. I think we really just need to leave it up to the bureaucrats how much weight this argument will get (since, for better or for worse, that's what we select them to do). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. –Juliancolton |  13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech admins aren't like judges. Admins are users who can ban block and protect. The more we have the faster work gets done. In case you didn't notice Supreme court judges cost a lot of money and there isn't a terrific shortage of them simply because only a tiny fraction of cases go that far. How does having more admins harm the project? It can only benefit it. BTW supressing someone's opinion makes you look bad, much better and fairer to discredit his opinion completely in public ;-). Anyway DougsTech please respond to this, I think we all want to know the answer.--Patton 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. people try not to jump in and start calling his opinion dumb I'm trying to start a reasoned debate here ;-).--Patton 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we discussed this long enough? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ALl of that discussion above was basically labelling him a troll and not attempting to readon with him...--Patton 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An Idea

So, here's an idea about RfA (and I'd like to pre-empt one possible response by saying I don't think this duplicates admin coaching at all). What if there was a place for people to put out "RfA feelers" and just see how a potential RfA would likely turn out. I suggest this for several reasons. First of all, for reasons I don't understand there's a stigma involved with a failed RfA, so good editors may be unwilling to accept a nomination (or self-nom) if they don't feel confident. Second, there's a more or less irrational rule that says you have to wait 3 months between RfAs, so a candidate who might pass if he waited one more month, might fail and then the community would be denied his/her services for 2 months. Thus, I think there should be a forum for "RfA feelers". What do you think? Just a voice in the wind (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it really so important as to justify another talking shop? Anyone looking at a selection of recent RfAs ought to be able to fairly easily assess their own chances. Is anyone likely to come out of the woodwork claiming that you're "uncivil"? Have you hung around the various XfDs without getting into too much hot water? Have you upset any high profile administrators? Can you point to a history of article building? Success at RfA is just about doing whatever it is that leads to success at RfA this month, and not doing whatever it is that leads to failure until you've been awarded the Golden Mop. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Editor review might be of interest. –Juliancolton |  05:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well of course editor review opens with the statement: "If you are here because your goal is to become an administrator, you should direct yourself to Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching", so I don't really know how relevant it is. And as for Malleus, were it only so simple. What about an editor who got involved in a nasty edit war 8 months ago and got a 24 hour 3RR block, but has since show exemplary behavior? What about an editor who has frequent month-long gaps in his editing? Sure, we all know that an editor with 12,000 edits, a year on the project, and participation in 1000 AfDs will pass, but there's a big gray area, and it would be nice if you could navigate it with some help. Just a voice in the wind (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The only sure-fire way to find out whether you'd pass or not is to go for it. If it tanks just be humble and address the issues brought up by your opposers; keep your head down for three months and try again. Nobody will hold the earlier failure against you, they'll just think that you learned from it. It's not rocket science. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A good point. By the way, I'm not actually considering an RfA for myself at this moment., but you make a good point nothing's better at figuring out if you'd pass than an RfA itself. Just a voice in the wind (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd also recommend reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to requests for adminship which will give you some pointers as to what you need to have done here, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list which will give you some of what you need to know, first. ϢereSpielChequers 14:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Watching RfBs

Does anyone know of a convenient way to check the list of both RfAs and RfBs currently running at any given time? I notice that in the table at the top of this talk page, Anonymous Dissident's is listed in among the RfAs, but is actually an RfB, and I don't see any indication that it's an RfB. Is there any way to get a display that includes both but marks the RfBs as such? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's one that separates them... Ceranthor 20:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFA and scroll down ......... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SQL/RfX Report used to. I'll go ping ST47 about it. Xclamation point 21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you decided to up and run your own :) User:X!/RfX Report -- Avi (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You could always watchlist the main RFA page and you'll see all the nominations being transcluded. But you're probably already doing that. Useight (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be far too simple. –Juliancolton |  22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I propose that we change the redirect at WP:DRAMA to this talk page. Why? See the above. I mean, come on people. Bah. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just do a cross-namespace redirect to Misplaced Pages instead while you're at it. bibliomaniac15 04:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Ottava. Too much drama here. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 08:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd support WP:DRAMA as being a dab: This page, AN, AN/I, WQA, MOS talk, Fiction (notability), Date linking proposal, the majority of XfD discussions, and dozens of RFC pages, and .. well, I could go on - but I won't. — Ched ~ /_© 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• A veritable TV guide for drama mongers. Excellent! I love it! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a dab page. Simply use an alternate term for each destination page. As an example, I humbly present WP:BUNFIGHT. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some statistics

New admins

Number of successful RfAs:

• 408 in 2007 (June-December: 235) (data)
• 201 in 2008 (data)
• 112 (projected) in 2009, extrapolating from the 28 successful candidacies in the first three months of 2009 (data)

Unsuccessful RfAs: (data)

• 512 in 2007 (June-December, 326)
• 392 in 2008
• 236 (projected) in 2009, extrapolating from the 59 unsuccessful candidacies in the first three months of 2009

Analysis: Numbers for both successful and unsuccessful candidates have dropped sharply since 2007 (and 2006, which was about the same as 2007: 352 successful, 543 unsuccessful candidates). The ratio of successful to unsuccessful candidates has decreased from 4:5 in 2007 to less than 1:2 in the first three months of 2009. (The ratio was 7:11 in 2006).

Admins no longer active

Note: what is being counted is all types of editing. An admin can be "active" though doing no admin actions whatsoever.

Admin resignations and de-sysopings: (data)

• 33 in 2007 (June-December: 17)
• 35 in 2008
• 21 for January-March 2009 (projected for all of 2009: 84)

Inactive:

• 118 as of 6/08/07: 118 (earliest available data)
• 164 as of 12/30/07: 164
• 256 as of 12/31/08: 256
• 281 as of 3/31/09: 281

Semiactive:

• 198 as of 6/08/07 (earliest available data)
• 283 as of 12/30/07
• 421 as of 12/31/08
• 439 as of 3/31/09

Total decrease in active admins:

• June-December 2007: 17+46+85= 148 (7 months)
• January-December 2008: 35+92+138= 265 (12 months)
• January-March 2009: 21+25+18= 64 (3 months)

Analysis: the number of admins who stop being active has been relatively steady over the past 27 months, averaging 21 to 22 per month. If new admins (successful candidates) per month exceed 21 to 22, then the net number of active admins will increase. If there are, on average, less than 21 to 22 successful RfAs per month, then the number of active admins will decrease.

Net changes in active admins

• June-December 2007: added 235, lost 148, net change: +87 (7 months)
• January-December 2008: added 201, lost 265, net change: -64 (12 months)
• January-March 2009: added 28, lost 64, net change: -36. (3 months) (Extrapolated: -144 for all of 2009)

In context, there are now 1,634 user accounts in the "Administrator" group, with 720 being inactive or semiactive (see above), for a net of 914 active admins.

Analysis: the number of admins added each month via RfA is, on average, currently much lower than the number of admins who stop being active. As a result, the number of active admins has been decreasing for some time, with a projected decrease of 15% or more in 2009, if current trends continue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick view of active admins

(Belated addition, 2 April 2009) I just noticed that the bot that daily updates the page Misplaced Pages:List of administrators also posts, in the edit summary, the number of active admins. This provides a quick view of how this number has changed over time:

• Most recent 1000 changes to the page

Analysis: The number of active admins peaked, in February 2008, at around 1,020; March 2008 showed an average of around 930. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I extracted the revisions the bot made and created a chart with the active admin number (on the right). The bot was active since September 2007. We see a steady increase until the 1000+ that John Broughton mentions in February 2008, then a bumpy, but steady decline to the approximately 910 active admins today. Regards SoWhy 22:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What accounts for the deep valley near the end, a problem with the bot? -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Rick pointed out that the bot made a mistake at the end, but I did not have the correct number to replace those with. I think the graph is fine to show the overall problem, but I agree that it's not perfect. Just something I put together in a few minutes of free time ;-) SoWhy 09:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Interesting stuff, thanks for doing that research. –Juliancolton |  16:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This makes me more frustrated with the "no need for more admins" opposes. hmwithτ 16:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for the research and statistical analysis. — Ched ~ /_© 17:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, kudos. The astonishing "number of successful RfAs" decline is the most chilling, as it really strikes doubt about the long-term sustainability of the current admin system. It's clear, as has been discussed to death here already, that there's a problem with RfA. It would be lovely if we could ever figure out how to solve it. ;) ~ mazca 17:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also been a fairly sharp fall in the number of unsuccessful RFAs. Perhaps part of the answer is to scout out some likely candidates and try and persuade them to run - or rerun. Has anyone trawled the unsuccessful RFAs from more than 6 months ago to see if some of those who weren't ready are still active and willing to run again? ϢereSpielChequers 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How would you define "likely candidates" though? Still, seems like a sensible idea to me. - Jarry1250 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think in the case of those who failed an RFA in the past, the test is it long enough ago for them to run again, are the reasons for the opposes still valid and would I support them in an RFA? I've started looking and its clear to me that RFA is a destructive process that loses us some editors, and not just those who get banned. ϢereSpielChequers 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The numbers show 2 trends: a decline in applications for admin (920 total in 2007, 348 projected for 2009) and a decline in the success rate of applications.

WereSpielChequers, why do you think "RFA is a destructive process"? --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Philcha, I think RFA is a destructive process because I've seen good editors have an unsuccessful RFA and leave the project. Also before I suggested trawling the old unsuccessful RFAs I did a trawl myself, and while I haven't calculated stats, I found several where the rejected candidate hasn't contributed since. ϢereSpielChequers 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to find out why experienced editors are not applying for adminship? I suggest that without some sort of research it's fruitless to speculate about the reasons for the decline. --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: common reasons that come to mind include people being burnt at previous RfAs, people not fulfilling every requirement needed for a decent pass these days ("good article and XfD work, but no CSD work? fail" et al) and people just not being interested. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I get caught up on other projects, I'm going to spend more time at WP:ER. If people got better feedback there, RFAs would be a lot more pleasant for everyone. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I was just re-reading the many thoughtful rationales in Teratornis's RFA. I guess my wish for the future is that we can use what we've learned from rationales in failed RFAs to help us fine-tune our advice at WP:ER, and hopefully improve the success rate. WP:ER says at the top, "Editor review seeks to review your contributions as an editor only, not as an administrator candidate." It would be nice if we could remove that sentence, but I wouldn't want to remove it unless and until editors can expect feedback at WP:ER that's on the same level as the feedback they get at RFA. Even though there are downsides to allowing future candidates to talk about their plans for RFA, I can't see a downside to allowing reviewers to judge editors by the same criteria they'd use at RFA, as long as they're clear that that's what they're doing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I could run. I've been around quite a while now, have 5700 edits or so, and have never done any vandalism or the like. But, there's absolutely no chance I'd pass. I'd get burned at the stake. Maybe I'm a case point; I'm guaranteed not to cause damage to the project using admin tools, but a flock of flying pigs will fly overheard before I ever passed RfA. But, watching RfA is great entertainment. It's like watching a raving horde of Golgafrinchans trying to invent the wheel, and getting stuck on deciding what color it should be. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You should check for the latest admin action, not the latest edits. I edit some still (around 100 edits per month) but haven't used admin tools since 4 months ago. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is summary data easily available, I would do that as well; I'm not aware of any, but I'm hardly aware of all the statistics and counts that have been done. What I don't want to do is examine, by hand, the editing records of more than a thousand admins. If you check the data links, above, you'll find that I'm citing publicly available summary data, some with monthly totals, some with annual totals. The entire analysis took me only a couple of hours because all I had to do was some basic math (mostly addition). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The only way to do this is by using the dumps, querying for users with the admin bit and their last administrative action (which should be recorded in a log). Just saying that the actual number of active admins is just a fraction of the number you show here. And admins that have been inactive have a harder time coming back: sometimes if you try to close a discussion, delete something, or move something, readers may complain that you have been inactive for a while and don't know whether your criteria still applies, or will call you a SPA or a friend of one of the ones discussing. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• As a non-admin who loves Misplaced Pages, I'm glad to see this analysis; it's a scary trend. Sadly, I grok it all too well. After watching the RfA process with morbid fascination, I'm convinced that the effort and risks involved in applying for adminship outweigh the benefits of gaining it. It'll take a much bigger administrative backlog than I've ever seen before I'll offer my contributions and character as a target in this venue. So much drama. And the grand prize is a mop, folks. A mop! A nice mop, a useful mop, to be sure, but still .... I only wish I knew how to fix the process. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Certain candidates seem to get through the process with no drama whatsoever; check out User:WilliamH's RfA for example. The way to get through has been summed up by me in one sentence; you have to be visible enough that people know who you are, but not so visible that you've managed to piss someone off. It is unfortunately rather a difficult balance to strike. Ironholds (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Imagine if the process for getting a driver's license were modeled after RfA. You'd be questioned about motorcycle safety (AFD) even if you were applying for a truck/lorry license (AIV). You'd be grilled about what you want the license for, and asked to tell about your best road-trip ever and whether you'd ever been in a fight. For seven days, people would wander through and scrutinize your academic and disciplinary records, looking for clues that you might make a reckless driver, basically anything that might remind them of unsafe drivers they've run into in the past. They'd announce their judgements to a crowd of bystanders, and you'd be expected to smile and thank them for their pains. A couple globe-trotters would argue that you haven't done enough international travel to deserve a driver's license. And to top it off, one of them would tell you that he thinks there are already too many drivers on the road. --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Stephen, that's brilliant! Kingturtle (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think it's quite as bad as all that.. and, it's just an analogy, but we could learn a thing or two from driver licensing procedures. If you make a significant error, you can get ticketed for it. Too many tickets (in many locales) results in a loss of driving privileges. I know it's been said over and over and over, but if we had some usable way of keeping admins in line, we could promote them far more liberally. Friday (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  We have a way, it's called ArbCom. You might consider trying it? Majorly talk 15:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I will reiterate that I think it would be very helpful if ArbCom set up some kind of sub-committee or tribunal to focus solely on Admin complaints which could then give ArbCom their recommendations to be put int effect. I think that would allow for a faster, more streamlined process. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  That would be reassuring for a lot of people, and theoretically, it should be doable, but there's a lot I don't know about how and whether this would work in practice. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  It's possible they can be useful for that, but I'm not holding my breath. I've seen them fail too many times in solving this problem, and indeed some of our more infamous problem admins have been on arbcom. Then again, this arbcom is different from arbcoms of the past, so who knows. The one thing I've become fairly convinced of is that the "community" is utterly worthless in solving this problem. There are way too many people running around who would say "I oppose desysopping so-and-so! He's my buddy and a nice person!" Still, I hold out hope that we can find a way to promote people liberally and solve the problem of deciding who's capable from the other end. (ec) I like Avi's suggestion- I think it'd be worth trying. Friday (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I think that's a good idea, actually, Particularly if we gave it a bit more teeth, like adding "(X) reprimands from ArbCom over (X period) results in automatic loss of admin priveleges and/or requires a new RfA." I do tend to think the ArbCom itself wouldn't like the additional workload. Has anyone asked the ArbCom if they would be willing to do this, or set up a subentity to manage complaints about admins? John Carter (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Plus, you have to be a certain age to apply for a driver's license. *ducks* --Ali'i 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hahahaah.. I know it's just a silly analogy.. but, consider this: when getting the license, do they merely ask you how you would drive a car, if you were physically able to do so? No, they take you out and observe how you actually drive an actual car. Relevant assessment- it's not a new idea to the world in general, but it seems to be a very new idea at Misplaced Pages. Friday (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  The one thing I continue to be disappointed about at WT:RFA is the defeatism; yes, not every problem has been solved, and the problems left tend to be the bigger, more intractable ones, but hundreds of debates have been resolved over the past couple of years in RFAs, and it has made a huge difference in the quality of rationales. The counterargument to the truck driving test is a doctor's office visit. "Doc, my lungs hurt. Hey! What are you doing poking around and looking at my tongue? I said it's my lungs!" The community has felt that it needs to do a lot of prodding and poking around to figure out what to do, and sometimes, we've needed every bit of that poking around to catch people who would have become awful admins. Of course, all the prodding and poking around also has negative effects. My current thinking is not to berate opposers for being too critical, but instead to warn people at WP:ER who want to run about potential RFA problems and what they might do about it. RFA voters tend to be pretty forgiving when someone recognizes something that's considered a problem at RFA and works on it for a while before running; it's the people who have no idea what the opposers are talking about who get harsher treatment. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I can kind of see your point about rationales changing as the discussions take place. As you can see, there aren't the "why not"s or "no big deal"s in my RfA that were found in most of them just a short while ago. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad that my analogy struck a chord with a few people. I wrote it more to vent my own fears about the process than to affect people's thinking, but rereading it in the cold light of morning, I find I want to get more involved in improving/fixing the process.

I wonder why Misplaced Pages adminship always includes both the power to delete pages and the power to block users. These seem like distinct powers, and I often see candidates stating that they only need/want one or the other. Splitting these admin capabilities out (creating new user groups for them) would allow a more gradual transition to adminship for those who desire it. (Is this what happened with rollback?) True, both activities require good judgment and tact, but separating them might help some voters feel comfortable approving candidates whose experience is mainly/only in one area or the other. I'm sure this must've been discussed before; perhaps someone could point me to the discussion to help me get up to speed on why things are the way they are. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue of debundling the administrator tools comes up from time to time, most recently here. It never takes root largely because nobody can agree on which tools ought to be debundled, plus administrators have a natural reluctance to give up some of their perceived authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That got me to WP:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures, which is more what I had in mind. Kind of confusing to me, since it says both "can't be done" and "already been done". If the WikiMedia software lacks the necessary refinement, might that not be seen as a bug or at least a valuable future enhancement? --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This comes up a lot, and you hear roughly 3 objections: 1. There have been something like 100 reasonable proposals (depending how you count them) to tweak RFA over the last year or two, generating a lot of discussion but never any consensus, so there's a lot of discussion-fatigue on proposals like this one. 2. RFA has always been about whether we trust that that person's heart and head are in the right place, not about micromanaging what the're competent to do 3. The argument that's persuasive to me: sure, RFA could be something different, but it's not, and it's taken us a long damn time bouncing arguments back and forth to get ... well, not consensus, but some stability. If we change what it is we're voting on, the arguments might converge in a year or so, but that's a lot of extra work for little gain. Bottom line: if you get high-quality feedback, and if adminship is something you really want, it's not that hard to achieve for most editors. (And for the ones who really do have a hard time, probably the best thing to do is to reassure them that they don't have to be an admin to be accepted and appreciated for what they have to offer, rather than assuming that the counterexamples mean that RFA is broken and has to be reformed.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the discussion fatigue. I won't be bringing any proposals at this time, though I'm happy to discuss anything that comes up.

I'm puzzled by your belief that RFA has always been about trust and attitude. I wish that were true. As an observer of the process, I see a lot of attention and lip-service being paid to experience, understanding of policies, participation, number of edits, etc. Misplaced Pages:Guide to requests for adminship is quite blunt about this: trustworthiness is listed as one of nine things that are looked for. If the system were changed, perhaps varied experience would become less of a hurdle to admin hopefuls.

I have no problem with the current success rate. I just wish the process was less daunting. so that we'd see more qualified candidates. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidates are often rejected with statements like "not enough edits/policy experience/deletion work/etc", but look at the current crop of RFAs; some people are sailing through who don't meet all these qualifications. That doesn't mean that we're hypocritical when we oppose with comments like that, it means we're like every other institution that has to accept some candidates and reject others; we gush when we accept, but many of us try to give the least inflammatory, least detailed (but still accurate) reason for rejection we can find. It would serve no purpose to say "I turned you down after reading all the comments and some of your contribs, and I found the following 26 potential problems". It's easier, kinder, and more helpful advice for the next RFA just to say something like "keep working, and I think I could accept you next time if you work hard on X". That doesn't mean no candidate can possibly pass unless they work hard on X. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight into RfA rejectomancy. I see now why rejections based on lack of experience might be misleading to spectators such as myself. I remain unconvinced that trust and attitude are the main metrics, though. To believe that, I'd have to assume a level of mendacity in both supports and opposes that would wreck my faith in the Misplaced Pages community.--Stepheng3 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

←Sure thing. And I should have been more careful: I don't mean that performance doesn't count, I just mean that the voter has to take a lot of factors and distill them down to support, oppose or neutral, and when forced to justify why one thing was more important than another, it's often phrased in terms of trust: the candidate did such a good job with X that I can trust them to have good judgment if they ever tackle Y. In easier cases, they don't talk about trust because they don't have to, it's implied by "candidate is great at X, Y and Z". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of April Fool's Day RfX's

If you're interested, please see the following untranscluded requests, and add any new ones that pop up. If you're not interested, you may return to the extremely productive discussions normally found on this page, already in progress. Floquenbeam :  Chat  02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Hagger
• User:Useight/Requests for signatureship
• Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009/Requests for adminship/Juliancolton Alternative has been deleted, undeleted, and moved (to a rather odd title. I think there should be a third "Misplaced Pages in there somewhere)
• Acalamari's request for retirementship. Acalamari 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Nutiketaiel

Deleted Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Hagger. Don't push it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales - iMatthew :  Chat  19:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Dylan620 Dylan620 :  Chat  20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Seeing how I can't find a consensus anywhere to delete April Fools Day noms, I thought I'd start a discussion. Joke RfAs do not hurt the Encyclopedia (after all, they aren't in the namespace and you have to go looking for them), and are a good way to get a few laughs and relieve some tension. Additionally, since they are obviously jokes, they are easily distinguishable from the regular noms that everyone is so worried about getting lost in the shuffle. I think, since there is no visible consensus against them, they shouldn't be deleted. Comments? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding (and it is just that) was that joke RFA's are sub-paged somewhere so as not to clutter the real RFA's and that generally they are deleted on April the 2nd (with the exception that I believe Kurt's was sub-paged for posterity). Whilst you could MFD the lot of them this falls under the "leniency to good users" rule that applys to a lot of other things - provided that they are not in either the mainspace or the project space. We do need to balance a good laugh with not disrupting Misplaced Pages. In-jokes are fine - but remember that they are just that. Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Naturally. I would NEVER attempt to disrupt the Mainspace. I don't see anything disruptive about this, though; especially since, as you point out, they will all be removed in less than 24 hours. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• The jokes are fine as long as they are kept well away and it is clearly indicated. I think having it in a separate subpage is the best idea, as others already are (such as Useights's signature thingy). I don't think the jokes ones should be directly added here. Ottava Rima's RfA (serious one) was reverted thinking it was a joke. We don't want anymore embarrassing incidents like that with people mixing up things. And it would be really nice if people discussed things before they revert. Every time I refreshed my watchlist in the past few minutes, I see someone or other reverting this page giving some damned reason that again gets reverted soon after. I mean, seriously what's with you people? You guys are experienced editors who know our policies and guidelines well, so why did you guys feel the need for a revert war without discussing in the first place? Chamal :  Chat  14:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, you're definitely right about that last point. I should have tried opening a discussion earlier in this process. Everyone has my apologies for not starting a discussion sooner. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• It can be hard to distinguish between the intentional jokes, the unintentional ones and the serious noms with realistic prospects. Those with no sense of humour will oppose the joke noms anyway, even if they don't get the joke. So removing presumed joke noms looks like a bad idea - as Chamal's post shows(14:23, 1 April 2009). --Philcha (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  Distinguishing them is easy, and Chamal's post is probably a bad example to bring up since Ottava's RfA clearly stated that it was not a joke; the removal was due to someone misreading it, not a lapse of judgement over whether or not it was a joke. Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete or don't delete based on policy and debate. No need to draw a bright line regarding deletion. I think it goes without saying they should not be in the archive of actual RfAs. Chillum 14:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think the joke was flogged to death. Maybe next year make a special page for joke RfA's? I don't think we need a formal policy, we handled things fine without one this year.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Comedy is hard, even for professional comedians. Letting off steam without breaking anything is hard. Having things go all to hell one day a year isn't excessive, I think. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/fuzzyhair2

This RfA was not created properly as the transcluded version is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Fuzzyhair2. Should the page be deleted? GT5162 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've done it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, should his RfA be closed per WP:NOTNOW since he has less than 100 edits? GT5162 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Already closed. GT5162 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Abolish RfA thread

Moved to User:IMatthew/April Fools Day. No need to remove this thread, just a notice to all who seems lost in it's deletion. iMatthew :  Chat  20:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should replace RfA with Request for deity. Here is the first challenger: Misplaced Pages:Request for Deity/PeterSymonds. Synergy 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

SPAs

Following the call from Misplaced Pages Review and other message boards, there are quite a few SPAs that have appeared in my RfA. What do we do with those? Simply link to their contributions and hope a Crat pays attention? Something else? The normal canvassed opposition thing, but when they have to resort to such obvious SPAs is kinda sad. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be helpful if you listed, here, at least the more obvious SPAs, so that other editors can get a better sense of who you are referring to, and a better sense of the number of such editors appearing in your RfA. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The two blatantly obvious ones are - this and this. There are others that aren't so obvious. Its great when people claim to have contact with me before and never have, and are just repeating things from message boards. You can easily do a check to see how many people have actually voted in RfAs and then look at their contribs. It has to be expected when groups like Misplaced Pages Review hate an individual. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 79 "oppose" opinions; you've identified two accounts that certainly seem of questionable stature, though we do not forbid SPAs from expressing opinions in RfAs. Unless you can identify and list many, many other accounts that are questionable (and, briefly, why), the issue of whether a bureaucrat will pay attention to SPAs in your RfA is irrelevant, since the percentage of "oppose" opinions is so high. -- John Broughton (♫♫)

Um, this is a discussion about general reactions. I could care less to be honest. I want to see what the community thinks as the appropriate response to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a tag saying that this user "has few or no other contributions except to this RfA" is generally added and the crat is free to ignore the SPA. Malinaccier (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The two editors linked to, above, have (respectively) 15 prior edits, going back to July 2008, and 9 prior edits, going back to December 2007. So that tag might not apply, depending on how one defines "few". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about a general situation, but these tags should probably be applied in a case-by-case basis at the discretion of whoever notices the amount of edits. Malinaccier (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RfBs

I am pleased to see some RfB nominations taking place, and that they are succeeding. I encourage you all to find more strong candidates and offer them up. It would be quite helpful to Misplaced Pages to have more Bureaucrats around. Kingturtle (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently, there was a guy who did WP:ER and got a strong reaction of "Run for cratship!", even though he didn't bring it up. (I believe he's not interested at this time.) I suggested that, when he's getting that kind of reaction, he might want to run 9 months after mopship instead of the traditional 12, on the theory that it wouldn't be a bad-faith run in any sense, and on the theory that the worst that could happen is that he fails, and gets information that would help him pass in 3 months. Alternatively, we could just watch WP:ER, and when admins run, try to give them the best feedback we can regarding cratship, so that they don't have to run to find out what they need to do. Either approach would work, but I'm not sure how to bring the subject up at WP:ER ... a little help? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think ER is an excellent way to look receive feedback before RfB, and/or to look for potential candidates. As well, I echo Kingturtle's thoughts; it's a sure sign of progress when two consecutive candidates succeeded/are succeeding. –Juliancolton |  18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Touch wood. Cyclonenim :  Chat  20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd nominate that guy Dan talks about tomorrow if he accepted it.

As for Dan's question: Many admins (like me) start ERs where they request specific reviewing of their admin actions. So do other users requesting specific help regarding potential AFDs. So why not start an ER asking that you want to be evaluated for cratship? Or you could ask a couple of admins and crats to evaluate you instead, many users ask admins to evaluate them for RFA, it's basically the same. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we haven't gotten a response here to the 9 months suggestion, and since one voter asked for 18 months recently, I guess I'll recommend at ER that people wait at least 12 months after mopship before trying RfB, unless/until I hear differently. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Require 24-hour waiting period before voting

(In one of the previous 40,000 revisions, this has likely been discussed, so feel free to point me to a past discussion if there is one.)

The thought occurred to me that it would be nice if people didn't vote in the first 24 hours of an RFA and instead used the time to ask and get answers to questions. I think it would force people to read the questions more carefully and it would allow pertinent and relevant questions to be asked and answered before people made judgments about the candidate.

Sure, people could still show up on day 2 and vote however the hell they pleased, but having a one-day question session seems pretty reasonable to me. It puts more emphasis on the consensus aspect and less on the vote aspect. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would put less stress on the candidates and give more background on the editor, not just their edit count. -download | sign! 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been tried before with Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2. Icewedge (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This had indeed been discussed before, but I didn't see it in WP:PEREN, so I guess it hasn't been discussed a whole lot. I've been going through the WT:RFA archives, so I'll find it eventually, but I believe one of the main concerns was that there would be a plethora of questions asked, perhaps causing undue stress on the candidate. Useight (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that people want something to do on the RfA, and if they can't vote, they ask a question instead. That's why Ironholds had roughly 40 questions to answer. Xclamation point 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My sense is it wasn't pleasant for Ironholds; I've asked him to come share. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In the past we've talked about different time frames. (Anywhere from 2-4 days.) Personally I favour two days waiting, but if we can even get 24 hours before the pile-ons begin, I think that would be a plus. - jc37 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

24 hours discussion time would be absolutely wonderful. I don't really have much to say, but I figured I would just leave this here. — neuro 03:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• As the only person who can talk with personal authority on the subject; that experimental RfA was hell on earth. A 24 hour waiting time wouldn't help anything; people aren't obliged to bring up all their issues, so you get opposes like the first one at my RfA that sink the whole thing. In theory it would be nice, in practice it would fail. Its like communism but only one person died last time around :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Ironholds says it isn't worth it, I'm inclined to agree simply because of his guinea-piggery. — neuro 10:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Any arbitrary waiting period is not helpful at all. Those who want to make informed !votes, will ask questions first or check through contributions carefully. The rest will just be annoyed that they cannot !vote immediately and will !vote like they would have anyway on day 2. That's why we have crats for to close those requests: To sort out through the mess and evaluate consensus based on strengths of arguments, not on numbers. If users want to make premature !votes, let them do it. They should know that "great guy"-support !votes will not count as much as those which really address the candidate's track record. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In my four and a half months following WT:RfA, since my promotion, I've yet to see an attempt to channel well intentioned and nondisruptive behavior be successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this won't happen for numerous reasons, but I'd rather see things go the opposite direction, like they do on some of the non-en wikis: No discussion. Just a straight up or down vote. Less stressful, places onus on participants to do their own research. The current discussion format seems to disproportionately generate "me too" snowball opposes (which, in fairness, are often justified) and LOL supports. The educational value of the discussion could just as easily be generated through pre-RFA editor review processes for prospective candidates. And I think more candidates would be willing to go through this. Townlake (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer the discussion-like format over a straight vote. While it's not perfect, it allows for a more clear consensus to develop. –Juliancolton |  15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• In fairness to the concept Ironholds was trying to advance, I think that the Ironholds experiment may have had a different result (or at least a different reaction) if it had not been an experiment. That is to say, a borderline admin candidate tried a strong concept out as an experiment. A better way to test the theory would probably be to apply it as a uniform standard to all RfA's for a period of time. For example, if all RfA's during May do not let voting begin for 48 hours, then this would prevent people from seeing alterior motives in the candidate's decision to use a different RfA format. At the end of the month, we'd have some passed RfA's and some failed RfA's, and this would give us some data points to make a more informed analysis of the idea. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy whether we run the experiment or not. I can think of some things that could go wrong, but there's no point in being negative. But don't pledge to do it for every candidate in May, that's too much harm done if it goes wrong; do it for 2 or 3 candidates, preferably well-liked candidates who have little to lose ... maybe some strong but possibly premature RfA or RfB candidates; if it's too soon to pass, they'd have nothing to lose, and they could get some good feedback. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Are we allowed to start asking questions before the nomination is accepted? Thanks. GT5162 18:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would wait at least until it is accepted, and I would most likely wait until the nomination had been transcluded to the main RfA page. Malinaccier (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait. Is this a rule, or is it just recommended? (The RfA that I was going to ask a question to is Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cobi 4). GT5162 19:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's really no rule, but I think it would be a little rude to ask before then. It is similar to voting before transclusion whereas it is not specifically forbidden, but it is just not done. Malinaccier (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. The reason why I asked is because there are comments that say "<!-- Please do not submit !votes before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice if the RfA has been transcluded. -->" around the "support", "oppose" and "neutral" sections, but not around the "Questions for the candidate" section. GT5162 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that's because editors (at least in the past) have seem to think it's a minor coup to "beat the nom" in expressing a "support" opinion, and that irks some nominators. By contrast, I think it's fairly uncommon to add additional questions before a nomination becomes official. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

<- That and asking a question on an unaccepted RfA is fairly pointless I'm sure you'll agree.  GARDEN  21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What does "Strong Oppose" signify?

Just asking because I'm mildly curious. One not infrequently sees opposers switching from Oppose to Strong Oppose. Is there some convention that strong opposition carries more weight than straightforward opposition, or is it simply done for dramatic effect? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. Prodego 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Prodego. This essay, about AFDs, is a good one which can also apply to RFA. I rarely even say support or oppose as well - if it's in the oppose section, why the hell would it be a support? :) Majorly talk 22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite a good point, actually. I've also fallen out of the habit of writing Support or Oppose (I still do occasionally, however) as I don't see the point. Maybe it's just how we're used to seeing an RfA? I personally (here we go) see a "Strong" oppose as a little hard on the candidate, but that's likely just me an' mah wafer thin skin.  GARDEN  22:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree as well, it's mostly for dramatic effect. It does allow some distinction though, because if someone opposed already, they can use it to signal that due to new information, their previous !vote is not correct anymore. SoWhy 22:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If the user switched from support to oppose, perhaps, but if they are still opposed, no need to add pointless adjectives. Majorly talk 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What if someone opposed for bad CSD work, something that is improvable but later it turns out the candidate was actually a sock-puppeteer and regularly harassed users? I think in that case it might be useful to show that there was a change of reasoning behind the !vote. It's the same with "weak oppose" when something you opposed for turns out to be a misunderstanding and you want to make it clear that you are not as convinced that the candidate would be a bad choice as you were before. Regards SoWhy 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Majorly - that essay is brilliant. We need an RfA version... :D  GARDEN  22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sofixit. Majorly talk 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point Majorly, and one that I think Pedro made quite powerfully a little while ago. I'd resolved never to begin an oppose with Oppose at RfA ever again, but I slipped back into the old unthinking habit. Thanks for the reminder. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I always see it as "Whatever you do don't ignore this oppose when closing this RfA!!!" :) I've done it myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Or, Malleus, if this is one of the ones you're curious about, switching from oppose to strong oppose can mean "I opposed a little bit back then, but now I noticed something new that makes me twice as concerned as before." The substance isn't in whether it says "oppose" or "strong oppose," but in the rationale given below there. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Rjanag makes a valid point here. People can use OPPOSE to have different meanings or express how strongly they feel about a particular candidate. A year or so ago I wrote out how I vote and tried to explain my rationale behind different !votes. But it basically boiled down to this: If I see a weak oppose, I read it as "I'm opposing, but if they pass I won't lose any sleep." A normal oppose as, "I'm opposing, but I don't necessarily think they will break wikipedia." And a strong oppose as "OMG if this person passes there is something seriously wrong." Now that being siad, how they vote weak/ /strong doesn't ultimately matter as much as the strength of argument/rationale. If I see "Strong Oppose, too many admins already" that doesn't weight as much as a normal oppose with a legit concern.---I'm Spartacus! 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I use "Strong" when I'm really passionate about my response. I use it very rarely (7 times out of 294 RFAs, and, by the way, 5 of the seven were strong supports) because I do want a "Strong" from me to mean something extra. Useight (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But do you believe that it does, or that it should? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I have problems in reconciling this idea of "how strongly you feel" with the idea of consensus. You're one person; why does it matter how strongly you feel? If I feel strongly the other way do I cancel out your feelings? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So, since each of us is only one person, then every "support" and "oppose" at an RfA should be exactly equal? That sounds an awful lot like voting. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your commenr sounds a lot like you didn't understand all of the words that I used, or what each of them meant collectively when put together in a sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I've ever used "strong" or "weak" as a qualifier to an RfA (or indeed AfD) opinion, I just never really felt it made any difference to how my vote was interpreted. A normal oppose with a cogent reason is always going to be respected more than "Strong oppose because baby penguins are brown". That said, I see no problem with adding qualifiers if you think it clarifies your opinion; it's personal taste. ~ mazca 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I also note that Ottava's RfA seems to have rather more "strong opposes" than usual - however, it also seems to have rather more opposes that simply are rather vitriolic. Evidently some people consider a strong objection best expressed by a "strong oppose", others prefer to express it in terms of direct justification. And some prefer to just foam at the mouth. ;) ~ mazca 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)