Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 136
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 130 | ← | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | → | Archive 140 |
Age and adminship
Discussion that caused a lot of trouble...
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I would like to point out that while maturity, and the many patterns of behavior that contribute to it, is certainly relevant to adminship, age per se is not. We have had eminently capable young administrators for the entire history of the project. It is perfectly reasonable to oppose a candidacy because the candidate acts like he's twelve years old, but it is not reasonable to oppose a candidacy because the candidate is twelve years old. I consider opposition that cites age but gives no concrete examples of immaturity to be worthless, and probably insulting. — Dan | talk 07:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, I feel like I'm much more likely to see the exact ages of editors on their userpages if they are under, say, 25. I've never wanted to post my age on this website, but I think if I were a teenager again, I probably would. That doesn't stop me from thinking, "if you don't want to be evaluated through the lens of your age, don't put your age on your userpage." Darkspots (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
In the apparently mistaken belief that there is no wikipedia rule-book of acceptable and unacceptable opinions, I will point out the irony of calling the vote of anyone who disagrees with one's own opinion as worthless, insulting, and bullshit. Indeed it displays a quite staggering lack of insight and understanding. The day that Rdsmith4's opinions are the only ones considered worthy of being taken seriously will be a sad day indeed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Inadequately explained opposes are exactly as worthless as inadequately explained supports. But, for supports, it's so common as to be expected. Here's why opposing on age makes sense: If you know someone is only 13, for example, you don't have to look for examples of immaturity- it's expected. Rather, with a young kid, you should look for examples of unusual maturity. And, lacking a solid set of such examples, you should assume they're about as immature as their age would indicate. The entire rest of the world has no problem admitting that children are, by definition, immature. We do a disservice to Wikipedia to pretend otherwise. Friday (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally do not hold an editor's age against them in RfAs, but I do respect the opinion of those who do. It is a valid argument and concern. As a bureaucrat, when evaluating an RfA result, I do not exclude such oppositions. Kingturtle (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
BreakThe above thread is neither constructive nor helpful. What are we hoping to accomplish here? What precedent are we showing for our new editors? Our younger editors? Admin hopefuls? Can we please stop bickering amongst ourselves and agree to disagree? This is my fault for sarcastically telling Majorly to post this here, because I flat out disagreed with him; and I knew it would instantly be met with opposition. But its turned into infighting. Whoops. — MaggotSyn 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You know, I've been a high school marching band instructor and Boy Scout leader for six years, meaning I've worked with literally hundreds of young men and women in precisely the age range (12-18) we're talking about here. There are plenty who are more mature than the rest, and these are the ones who are generally put in the leadership roles--Patrol Leader/Senior Patrol Leader, Drum Major, etc. But "more mature than the rest" is relative...at times, it's like being the best placekicker in a Pop Warner league. God knows I love them all to death...but they're still kids. Anything significant they do is still under our guidance and, ultimately, subject to our approval (although most of the time we're pretty informal about it, and they usually don't even bother trying to go too far). They're certainly not given any authority to "punish" anyone else or send someone away. In fact, of the hundreds of young men and women I've been able to influence over the last several years, and though I love them all dearly, there's only been one I would ever be comfortable with being a sysop here on Wikipedia. And you know what? Part of the reason for that is because, if someone were to tell her that she's too young, she wouldn't complain--she wouldn't expect to be treated any differently than her peers. Just something to think about, from someone who's probably more qualified than most to speak on this subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a website, not the city council. The only reaction I have ever had to age was when I failed my first RfA at 29 years old, and noticed all the kids who had passed their first tries. Then I realized it was because they had behaved in a manner that demonstrated their knowledge of policy, and that they could play nice with the others. This is just an intellectual exercise, and actions are all we are to be judged on. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Here we see good examples of the fundamentally wrongheaded thinking that we frequently get at RFA. I may be wrong, but I generally attribute this kind of thinking to a not-yet-adult mind. People are calling a failure to pass RFA a punishment?!? That's so far off, I probably can't even explain why it's wrong. Giving editors the admin buttons is not something we do for that editor - it's something we do for Wikipedia. All this emphasis on editors rather than the good of the project is way off base. Friday (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC) WR has a thread on this right now, and someone (I can't remember who, and I've already closed the tab and can't be bothered to go back to it) said something else that is relevant and which I had forgotten about. Teenagers simply cannot be expected to handle the backlash--including real-world threats--that often comes with performing even completely legitimate administrator actions. We always tell our band members and Scouts that if they or their parents have a problem with something one of the youth leaders did in their capacity, to come and bring it to us and not to that individual. People--especially parents who believe (however justly or unjustly) that their child has been wronged--can be quite cruel to whoever they view as the perpetrator, even if it is their child's peer. We don't expect our young men and women to put up with that; that's what we're for. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Well Im ok because I'm 52, seriously what a joke. The whole RfA thing has really gone down hill. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Further, what weight, if any, is given to the country or region of origin of said 12 year old? I'm willing to bet there is a substantial difference between a 12 year old from middle America versus a 12 year old from Rhodesia. My initial reaction to seeing a 12 year old in RfA would be to oppose, but before doing so, I would inspect the history of the candidate and vote based on the facts, rather than my preconceived notions... regardless of how expert I think my opinions of a 12 year old are. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty evident, to me at least, that we shouldn't have admins that are under 13. You could argue that 13 is too young. And it has nothing to do with content of the user's edit, or even "maturity." It's just too young. Beam 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I make a point that will probably be very unpopular amongst certain crowds? If you're under 18, publishing your age on the Web isn't a very good idea anyway. Save yourselves the trouble. - Revolving Bugbear 22:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous, and does nothing except perhaps to prove the immaturity of those participating in it. I've contacted Shapiro requesting that he allow deletion under G7. Otherwise, I'll MfD it. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(double ec)I'm not going to tell my exact age, but a process like RFA would certainly not result in me losing confidence in any way, shape, or form. I don't "invest" myself in the group, and I understand (unlike many others that are years older) that I'm working toward the encyclopedia, not RFA. I plan to run sometime in the future, however, and expect to receive tons of backlash. This proposal is basically ageism, and people can be very much mature at an age such as my own and not at an age such as 50. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
←(addressing Dan's bit, above) - Given that we don't really know who anyone is here, is it appropriate for us to make decisions regarding the wellbeing of a particular editor? Isn't that what parents are for? Advising against nom's from the young is unlikely to be of benefit, as the advice is likely to be ignored, as Dan notes. I'm also sure that many adults find the same process to be traumatic as their perceived faults are analysed to the nth degree. Fixing that is a whole other subject. As to ageism, I think it less likely that a 12 year old has the maturity and judgment to be an admin, but that certainly does not mean that we should use age as a guide, we are supposed to look at their contributions. If they demonstrate maturity, judgment or whatever your RFA criteria, then support. Kevin (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This been discussed to death, and the "cabal" page is deleted. Everyone, just please, shut up. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Adminship and ageResponding to a comment from Gears of War: "Lately, a 12 year old editor was denied Adminship because of his age. One editor commented: 'how can I trust an editor who has a bedtime to be an admin'. I find that horrible and so now there is a active discussion going on and I want you to join in. The discussion is taking place here." I agree. Adult administrators are not going to stay up 24/7 editing Wikipedia, unless something seriously is wrong with them. It is much better to have an administrator that is 12 years old than one who acts 12 years old. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Some thoughts on age, adminship, and the likeI invite everyone to read and comment on User:Giggy/On age and adminship, which mostly contains my thoughts after reading the above discussion, and observing RfA for a while. giggy (:O) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What Naerii said, if you have comments about the essay, make them there. This can only go sideways here. RxS (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Preemptive and premature archiving of discussions
- This talk page needs its own talk page. Prentend I am writing in such a place.
The above discussion about age was only 17 hours old when it was closed and archived. More debate continued in a new thread, but it too was quickly archived. I really don't think this gives everyone a chance to chime in. People are on all sorts of schedules and it is unfair to exclude some editors simply because they weren't online during the 17 hours. This is why we have RfAs and AfDs open for a week - to accommodate as many schedules out there as we can.
I have seen other cases in which debate was cut off much too early - sometimes done with good intentions meant to be a good deed, and sometimes done specifically to shut a particular POV or a particular editor up. The byproduct of premature archiving is censorship, and I advise against it. A 17 hour discussion just doesn't cut it.
(Please do not discuss Age in this thread. This thread is about preemptive and premature archiving of discussions)
Kingturtle (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Though I believe the discussion should have opened longer, it was closed so that it would not cause anymore disputes and because the discussion is closed and is taking place at a couple of essay talkpage. Feel free to comment there.Gears Of War 14:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've found the unwatch checkbox underneath the edit summary box is a great way of avoiding getting frustrated by a conversation in which one is not otherwise involved. —giggy 14:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- There does exsist an alternative, to archiving.--Koji†Dude (C) 14:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, that works to.Gears Of War 14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- There does exsist an alternative, to archiving.--Koji†Dude (C) 14:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone and their mother weighed in on those threads. The archiving didn't exactly prevent widespread community discussion. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing here seems to go anwhere anyway. Archiving was done to end the drama, which was the only thing that came out of it. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Really, I'd expect more common sense from a bureaucrat. The issue had been going in circles for quite a while, and it was a late archiving if anything, not a premature one. I agree with EotW above. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing here seems to go anwhere anyway. Archiving was done to end the drama, which was the only thing that came out of it. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- It didn't seem to get us any farther, though. I doubt anyone's opinions are changed. (And I don't see that as a bad thing, but it would've helped to accomplish something.) It just goes to show how many flaws there truly are in RfA. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Stray thought
I dont think becoming an admin should be a process; it should be more gradual. The extra buttons should be given over time; as with roll back. Ceoil sláinte 15:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:PERENNIAL#Hierarchical structures and Wikipedia:Limited administrators. - Revolving Bugbear 16:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there have been several cases of people who've been here for several years but having continuing issues with uncivil conduct and propensity to get into conflicts and acting rashly. One way or another, these things need to be taken into consideration by all. Vishnava talk 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't understand this comment. Yes, there are many wikiveterans who are less civil than they should be, but what does that have to do with whether admin tools are given out one at a time or as a package? - Revolving Bugbear 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well an RfA like we have now gives an opportunity to assess everything - giving out tools gradually doesn't, as I see it, permit a complete screening of a person's ability to use the tools. Besides, the power of deletion and blocking are equally important and thus editors need a clear decision of trusting or not trusting a person. Right now rollback has simple criteria and straightforward history check, but deletion and blocking require an overall idea of how a person thinks, understands policy, etc. You'll need an RfA every time you take a step forward - that's what I think is likely to happen. Vishnava talk 05:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- A thumbs up or down emphasizes to an editor that past behavior and conduct needs overhaul, that being an admin means handling several responsibilities at once and properly. Incivility for example, may not have a bearing on getting the deletion button, but does influence the conduct of any editor with any responsibility. Vishnava talk 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- By taking it slowly and giving an admin hopeful the buttons little-by-little, it gives the community a chance to watch the editor more and view how they interact with others, as opposed to going through a brief, one-week process to gain the +sysop and little pre-adminship testing or trials. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The community already does watch the editor and how he/she interacts with others, and it is discussed at RfA. - Revolving Bugbear 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the same thing as giving the user the buttons gradually, however. This way, we can acually have the candidate try out the tools and prove to us how useful (s)he will be — before we give them all of the mop. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's still a totally different issue from civility and conflict. Someone's not going to get less civil automagically because they get the mop. A user with a history of, as you said, "uncivil conduct and propensity to get into conflicts" shouldn't be given any of the tools until they can prove that they've improved significantly. - Revolving Bugbear 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I concur, but I didn't say "uncivil conduct and propensity to get into conflicts", Vishnava did. I was merely inserting my two cents about the proposal. :-) SynergeticMaggot is right, though; we should bring this up at WP:VP, rather than discussing it here. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's still a totally different issue from civility and conflict. Someone's not going to get less civil automagically because they get the mop. A user with a history of, as you said, "uncivil conduct and propensity to get into conflicts" shouldn't be given any of the tools until they can prove that they've improved significantly. - Revolving Bugbear 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the same thing as giving the user the buttons gradually, however. This way, we can acually have the candidate try out the tools and prove to us how useful (s)he will be — before we give them all of the mop. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The community already does watch the editor and how he/she interacts with others, and it is discussed at RfA. - Revolving Bugbear 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- By taking it slowly and giving an admin hopeful the buttons little-by-little, it gives the community a chance to watch the editor more and view how they interact with others, as opposed to going through a brief, one-week process to gain the +sysop and little pre-adminship testing or trials. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I think an RfA does a lot more - it kinda works as a social contract. Each candidate gets the understanding of the standards of the community of editors and how they judge and hold him/her accountable. As of right now, I don't see how you can gradually grant deletion or blocking rights without a major screening each time. So instead of one RfA, you may be bargaining for 2-3 additional ones. Vishnava talk 05:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- True, it will be a typically longer process, but if it improves Requests for adminship it'll be much more worth the wait. I wont mind it as long as it attends to the current issues many editors have with the current RfA procedure. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's something I don't fully understand - exactly what needs changing and how much? I've suggested tweaking stuff like making it clear one way or another about "optional" nature of questions or as I said above, giving some time to get all questions in, just to make sure things are fair and move smoothly. But what exactly is the concern that may justify actually tri-furcating the process (rollback, blocking, deletion)? I feel positive that applying for blocking and deletion tools will involve a full-fledged RfA each time, so what's the benefit in balance to right now? Vishnava talk 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose I've slightly misunderstood what you meant specifically. What I intended (and thought you meant) is that when a user desires to become an admin, we give them a button at a time, and have them undergo a brief trial of the tool given. Then another 'button' is granted, and other admin-tests are performed (I suggest, also, a pre-admin school, instead of just WP:NAS for afterward). Many editors believe that RfA is negatively becoming a vote, not a discussion towards consensus, and this could potentially resolve that—instead of !voting support, oppose, or neutral, we'd simply discuss how the admin hopeful is doing and what need be done before entrusting them with the mop completely. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 06:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course some of you might already know that I support the idea of a gradual increase of buttons. Thus eliminating the idea of dropping all of the tools into one package deal. But this is not the place to be talking about this. A new proposal needs to be drawn up, addressing past concerns from perennial. — MaggotSyn 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Extra questions on RfAs
This may have been discussed before, or may easily be a "solution in search of a problem," but is it a good idea to have a 6-hr limit for editors to get any extra questions in before voting starts on an RfA? The objective is to allow the candidate to fully answer any/all questions and give every voter a complete picture to base their vote upon. Any thoughts? Vishnava talk 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I give way more weight to the candidate's contributions than their answers to the questions. I don't think waiting around six hours would be necessary. Useight (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to adress a concern of my own. Lately, RFAs have fallen victom to like 10 extra questions. I think this is very frustrating. Should there be a limit to how many extra questions a candidate can recieve.Gears Of War 15:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both good points - the issue I'm raising here is to give a full picture to the voters. You may have your own perspective in judging candidates or a desire to limit the number of questions one is loaded with, but in both cases it would help to allow the candidate to clear all questions he/she desires before the decision process begins. Vishnava talk 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)No, there should not be a limit. These questions are supposed to find more information about the candidate. The candidate can answer however they choose (or not at all), because they are optional. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, just a thoght. :}Gears Of War 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- They are de facto not optional, as evidenced by opposition simply from not answering the questions. Why people continue to pretend they are optional, I don't know. Tan | 39 15:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The "optional" part is little more than a title at the moment. To be honest, I don't know why the "optional" part is retained still, as there's been plenty of evidence to prove that not answering a question tends to have negative effects to an RfA. Either questions should truly be optional, or the "optional" part should be dropped. Acalamari 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I made that suggestion somewhere, once upon a time, but it didn't go anywhere (as usual). Tan | 39 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- This thread has taken quite a tangent from the original question. But, yeah, suggestions never go anywhere, this is RFA. Useight (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well that needs to change. Jimbo Wales should be more active in these sorts of conversations, especially ones over here at RFA.Gears Of War 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, totally, disagree there. Jimbo (and Larry) did great things in setting Wikipedia up and Jimbo did great things with the WMF (and arguably does great things as a general ambassador for the WMF), but he has less experience with the current version of Wikipedia than many one-month-old accounts. His essays and ideas on the day-to-day maintenance of Wikipedia are, by and large, geared towards a small to medium-size site with few thousand articles, not the eighth largest website in the world. The "Jimbo is always right" cult does nobody, including him, any good. – iridescent 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well that needs to change. Jimbo Wales should be more active in these sorts of conversations, especially ones over here at RFA.Gears Of War 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- This thread has taken quite a tangent from the original question. But, yeah, suggestions never go anywhere, this is RFA. Useight (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I made that suggestion somewhere, once upon a time, but it didn't go anywhere (as usual). Tan | 39 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The "optional" part is little more than a title at the moment. To be honest, I don't know why the "optional" part is retained still, as there's been plenty of evidence to prove that not answering a question tends to have negative effects to an RfA. Either questions should truly be optional, or the "optional" part should be dropped. Acalamari 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- They are de facto not optional, as evidenced by opposition simply from not answering the questions. Why people continue to pretend they are optional, I don't know. Tan | 39 15:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, just a thoght. :}Gears Of War 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, once again, just a thoght.Gears Of War 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP:DEAL being the most obvious case in point. Tan | 39 19:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- For those who missed it, he's given his thoughts on the matter. Gears, you're probably not going to like them. – iridescent 20:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP:DEAL being the most obvious case in point. Tan | 39 19:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it has. My idea was to have time cap, be it 6 or 12 hours, to get questions in and the voters to get a full picture. The issue of "optional" or non-optional questions does not arise, as the candidate may still choose to decline answering any question, as much as he/she is entitled to do so now. Yes the pressure is there for the candidate to answer all questions regardless of the "option" not to, but that isn't the point. Vishnava talk 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the way it's done now that could justify a change?--Koji†Dude (C) 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said in my disclaimer above, its prolly not a serious issue, but the objective is to (1) make things fair and easier for the candidate, questioners and the voters and (2) allow better information and absence of confusion. As it has been noted, being given 10+ questions to answer requires some time on part of the candidate to judge whether or not he/she should and could answer, and allow people to get complete answers (or none at all) to the questions before deciding one way or another. I've seen several cases of the candidate having to re-assure people as the votes pile up that "no I didn't mean that," "no my record is clear on this," "no I've done what you are saying I haven't" and keep the messy debates over objections limited. Vishnava talk 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just think that allowing some organization and time allowance in the process helps make things clearer and fair to both candidate and voters, and allow the process to be clearer and more stable. Consider how easier and clearer things may have been in the recent RfA where the age of the nominee was a major concern, or the other one where the Huggling was a concern - questions could be asked ahead of voting and time given for the nominee to respond without stress and with due consideration. The voters can arrive at decisions once they've heard what the candidate has to say. Often times, the objecters make arguments that the candidate has virtually no time to answer or address properly, meanwhile others vote on the objecting argument of the first one. Vishnava talk 16:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that there is no pressing cause or urgency, but what's the harm in tweaking the process a bit for sake of fairness and stability? Vishnava talk 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you think if the nominee can't handle the stress of answering questions while the voting is open, they shouldn't be an admin? It's probably (and I say probably because I've never had an RfA, so I wouldn't know) not as stressful or urgent as you're making it seem, and you still haven't really shown what the prolem is that needs solving.--Koji†Dude (C) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good point.Gears Of War 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you think if the nominee can't handle the stress of answering questions while the voting is open, they shouldn't be an admin? It's probably (and I say probably because I've never had an RfA, so I wouldn't know) not as stressful or urgent as you're making it seem, and you still haven't really shown what the prolem is that needs solving.--Koji†Dude (C) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- My concern would be that the tone of the optional questions might become more inquisitorial, particularly in controversial nominations, than it is already. RfA can be a horribly bruising process without a candidate being openly confronted by editors who want to make a comment but cannot do so in a vote because of the time cap. I am thinking of a recent request in particular and, while I don't wish to go over old ground, I think this idea would have made the situation much harder for the candidate with no gain for the community. Rje (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- At any rate, there are too many questions, IMHO. We should be looking at the candidate's useful contributions to the encyclopaedia (and other namespaces), not merely how they speedily answer 1,000 questions. I would suggest a 10-question limit, because sometimes it just goes too far. We've all seen RfA's where a candidate receives nearly twenty questions, sometimes more. I think it's just unfair, and causes too much stress. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- If being asked questions causes a person "too much stress", then I respectfully submit that said person is not a suitable admin candidate. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- By the same token I would suggest that someone who takes offence at their "optional" questions being ignored has no right to offer an opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Then I don't think we actually have the same token. Even if we ignore the prevailing tradition (whereupon sysops take an "ombudsman"-like role, usually being the first to field questions from new users, even if said fielding is as simple as telling them to read a particular FAQ, or, in this case, check out the Help Desk), adminship still involves activities which are bound to raise questions - from "why was this article deleted?" to the cherished "why did you block user X?". If a candidate cannot deal with answering questions, it'll just mean more traffic over AN/I (see: Betacommand, Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me, et al.), or a candidate who avoids the very situations which the tools are most often used for - a useless admin, in other words. I consider this as utterly non-controversial as requiring a runway model to be comfortable with being stared at. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Having a 6 hour limit will disenfranchise those who live in different time zones. It needs to be at least 24 hours, if at all. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- How so? Wikipedia time uses UTC. I don't quite understand what you mean. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 06:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Coincidence?
Look at the RFA chart (on top of page). Have RFA standards instantly become higher or are many inexperienced or not qualified users just applying at the same time? RedThunder 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both, I'd say. Also, it may be noted that the users in red might just not be withdrawing. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing happens instantly around here - although some speculated that after Giggy's RfA, there was some leniency offered to new candidates. However, if that were true, it certainly was fleeting. Looking at the table at the top of the page, I'm guessing we're back to the approximate 50% success rate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and what Web says is true. Headbomb for instance made it clear that they did not wish to withdraw. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that a lot of users are applying right now, inexperienced or not. Can't… keep up… with backlog. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't there a time with around 30 RfAs on at once? Maybe a year ago? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have only been following RfA closely since May. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that SoxRed has a bot that tracks these things.Gazimoff WriteRead 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have only been following RfA closely since May. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The point, of course, is that if we removed the MYSPACERS and MMORPG'ers from even asking for +sysop (given they haven't a clue what the buttons actually do, and the damage they can cause) then the community might find they lower their standards. Not commenting on our current candidates, but if we want to reform RFA simply stop the leniency on "address books" "hidden pages" et. al. that is given to "established" editors. Anyone with half a clue and five hundred solid edits should be able to get the bit. The legion of "I've made 10,000 huggle reversions so I must be a good admin" editors need to wise up and understand it's not a reward. I'd suggest wanabee admins in this category read The Monkey's Paw ..... M♠ssing Ace 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- A great example is here at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JeanLatore. W have asked this very inexperienced user to withdraw but he thinks that: he will prevail in the end. Like other users have said, that RFA is just a blood bath waiting to happen.Gears Of War 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- That RFA is a poor example to cite in this context. This user stands no chance not due to inexperience or higher standards, but due to a fundamental inability to understand Wikipedia let alone adminship. Have you made the candidate at that RFA aware of this thread, by the way, as they are now mentioned in it? M♠ssing Ace 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your confusing me. That RFA is a good example of ineperienced users entering RFAs. All your other questions confused me, sorry.Gears Of War 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- That RFA is a poor example to cite in this context. This user stands no chance not due to inexperience or higher standards, but due to a fundamental inability to understand Wikipedia let alone adminship. Have you made the candidate at that RFA aware of this thread, by the way, as they are now mentioned in it? M♠ssing Ace 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- A great example is here at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JeanLatore. W have asked this very inexperienced user to withdraw but he thinks that: he will prevail in the end. Like other users have said, that RFA is just a blood bath waiting to happen.Gears Of War 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't there a time with around 30 RfAs on at once? Maybe a year ago? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hacking adminship
Whatever happened to this range of incidents of compromises? Simply south (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Devs installed captchas so you can't brute force crack an admin's account. You could still use social engineering though --Chris 10:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Opposers being Attacked
I was just reading BJweek's RfA and I was kind of surprised at the level of badgering some of the opposes were getting. I was thinking of going straight to the review of the RfA process with my concerns but I figured I'd see what you guys think first, to see if maybe I'm wrong. Beam 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is generally expected that candidates or their nominators will react to opposes. Of course, some opposes are more arguable than others, and I agree that the civilty of the replies is creeping downwards, but they are entitled to their opinion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Before this thread gives the impression of a Zimbabwean election, can you please elaborate or give some examples of "badgering"? There might be a bit more questioning of opposes than usual (some stern replies to otherwise acceptable opposes, but otherwise I'm not seeing much out of the norm. —Kurykh 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- RfA has sadly become an adversarial process, a little like hazing. I've seen much worse badgering than that, quite recently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Meh, opinionated diatribe happens. Read the section above for an alternative view. This RFA is, well, interesting, but drawing undue attention should not be encouraged, see Schrödinger's cat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite familiar with Schroedinger's cat, but could you possibly explain what its relevance is to the RfA? Did you perhaps mean Pandora's Box? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just afraid of changing the outcome through observation alone. Mind you, if despair is all that's left after RFA then, yes, I'd opt for the lady's box... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or that there's a 50% chance that the RfA will be poisoned in some way? :) (I love physics) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just afraid of changing the outcome through observation alone. Mind you, if despair is all that's left after RFA then, yes, I'd opt for the lady's box... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite familiar with Schroedinger's cat, but could you possibly explain what its relevance is to the RfA? Did you perhaps mean Pandora's Box? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Meh, opinionated diatribe happens. Read the section above for an alternative view. This RFA is, well, interesting, but drawing undue attention should not be encouraged, see Schrödinger's cat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- It would perhaps be interesting to know how many candidates retired after an unsuccessful RfA. The experience is unlikely ever to be a positive one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Over the last month or so when I've been lurking around RfA I've seen much worse "attacks" on opposers, but it was pretty constant as I read through BJweek's RfA which prompted me to make this post. I'm going to see what a few more people think and I probably will bring it up at the RfA review. Oh and to be clear, I haven't seen BJ himself harass the opposing, but a supporter or two have. Of course we shouldn't let that look down on the nominee although if it got drastic I hope a nominee would say or do something to try to calm it. Beam 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- A number of RFA's I've witnessed, the nominee stays well out of any wikidrama going on besides refuting inaccuracy or injustice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah usually a wannabe admin who is that close to achieving their goal won't fudge it up at the last moment. Beam 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or it's a wannabe admin (and anyone who goes for RFA is, by their nature, a wannabe admin) who doesn't want to get embroiled in wikidrama and induce oppose !votes (as I did) by trying to respond to other comments. If anyone has opinions/questions etc for the candidate, they should be discussed in the discussion section, not in the Support/Oppose etc section. Or better still, on the RFA talk page or on the talk page of the candidate. This vitriolic bloodlust we see from time-to-time should be avoided by everyone at all costs. And that includes opposition to the candidate taking the 'higher ground' to avoid such conflict. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- All cooperating nominees are wannabe admins, just to be clear. :) Beam 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, hence why I said " (and anyone who goes for RFA is, by their nature, a wannabe admin)"... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you thought that I thought that wasn't the case. Beam 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, hence why I said " (and anyone who goes for RFA is, by their nature, a wannabe admin)"... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- All cooperating nominees are wannabe admins, just to be clear. :) Beam 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or it's a wannabe admin (and anyone who goes for RFA is, by their nature, a wannabe admin) who doesn't want to get embroiled in wikidrama and induce oppose !votes (as I did) by trying to respond to other comments. If anyone has opinions/questions etc for the candidate, they should be discussed in the discussion section, not in the Support/Oppose etc section. Or better still, on the RFA talk page or on the talk page of the candidate. This vitriolic bloodlust we see from time-to-time should be avoided by everyone at all costs. And that includes opposition to the candidate taking the 'higher ground' to avoid such conflict. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah usually a wannabe admin who is that close to achieving their goal won't fudge it up at the last moment. Beam 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a look through Bjweeks' RfA. You mention "I haven't seem BJ himself harass the opposing, but a supporter or two have." I'll have to take another look at the RfA, but I see nothing there that qualifies as harassment. Maybe a little bit of heated discussion, but no harassment. Acalamari 20:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I like the term badger better than harass. Beam 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the term badger as well. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- QUOTED. Hilarious! My god, that was beutiful...--Koji†Dude (C) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Great edit summary. :D Acalamari 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia... Badger Badger Badger. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the term badger as well. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see how it's badgering either. Besides the support/oppose/neutral part, the other point of an RfA is to discuss if someone should be an administrator or not. As long as people remain civil towards one another, there's nothing wrong with responding to opposition (or even supports or neutrals, for that matter). Acalamari 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- For the majority of opposes to be questioned by one or two ardent supporters is badgering in my book, especially if it's petty. Someone should feel free to oppose without worrying about a supporter immediately saying that they are wrong, blatantly/directly or not. Beam 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- No matter what position you take in RfA, you should always be prepared for a response: when I participate, I know there's a chance that someone may want to respond to me, and I do not view it as badgering. Most of the time, when someone responds to you, they're not telling you that you're wrong; rather, they are trying to get a better understanding of your opinion. That's not badgering. Acalamari 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that there's nothing wrong with responding to opinion but, in my limited experience of such, I've witnessed all manner of hyperbolic screeching over "badgering" the opposers. No wonder candidates seldom respond to the !opposers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- For the majority of opposes to be questioned by one or two ardent supporters is badgering in my book, especially if it's petty. Someone should feel free to oppose without worrying about a supporter immediately saying that they are wrong, blatantly/directly or not. Beam 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I like the term badger better than harass. Beam 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Was contemplating starting a thread about this on my own, but apparently somebody beat me to the punch. RfA should more or less be a civil community discussion, but far too often the supporters become indignant at what they perceive as horrible reasons given by the opposition. You can have that opinion I guess, but, seriously people, keep it to yourself. The next time I see Support - Per user in the oppose section, I'm going to slam my head into my keyboard. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse my French but it's fucking retarded to support because the opposes don't seem any good. Beam 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it undermines the candidate. That kind of a support certainly doesn't help. It's to make a non-blue linked point. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse my French but it's fucking retarded to support because the opposes don't seem any good. Beam 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think I'll do that simply to see your "oi;4efhikhbr" reply :-) Tan | 39 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whenever I nom someone for RfA, I go into it telling them that it would take something greater than NPA to make me respond to an Oppose. They are free to do it, but I've seen so much Oppose hounding in my time that I prefer not to. Ideally there shouldn't be *any* responses, since there shouldn't be threaded discussion. If it was all moved to the discussion section or the talk page, things would be a lot better I think. MBisanz talk 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes... "oppose hounding". It's so classless and almost arrogant. Beam 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whenever I nom someone for RfA, I go into it telling them that it would take something greater than NPA to make me respond to an Oppose. They are free to do it, but I've seen so much Oppose hounding in my time that I prefer not to. Ideally there shouldn't be *any* responses, since there shouldn't be threaded discussion. If it was all moved to the discussion section or the talk page, things would be a lot better I think. MBisanz talk 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe... but some of the opposition comments are downright stupid. Hell, I once opposed Useight for screwing up the tally box formatting. Anyone calling me out for that would have been in the right. Then you have Kurt, and everyone who comes up with an arbitrary count of some type, or lack of equally arbitrary requisite experience in one area or another. Those votes are simply dumb, just like my opposition comment to Useight last year. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I recall that event quite clearly. I had no idea what went there and I couldn't decide if I should put the time or the date there. Useight (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I recall that event quite clearly. I had no idea what went there and I couldn't decide if I should put the time or the date there. Useight (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Some opposes can be rotten or seem unfair - nitpicky, cherry picking, whatever you want to call it. But, that's no excuse for being argumentative, and it's certainly against etiquette and the spirit of Wikipedia for the Support section to become angry to the point of spiteful !voting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is either a discussion, or it is not. If an RfA were held in person, I guarantee you we wouldn't see half of the opposes that we do simply because there is no way they could be said with a straight face into the eyes of the nominee. Calling them out in writing is entirely legitimate. Certainly, I believe it is equally legitimate to question absurd supports as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps if there was a little bit of honesty about whether RfA is, or isn't a vote, then we might one day see this much vaunted but little practised idea of consensus in action. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this thread highlights a bad feature of RfAs, and similar polls. Certain editors seem to feel entitled to browbeat and attack and harass and intimidate those they disagree with at these polls. Some even threaten others, or take revenge for voting the "wrong way", sometimes a year or so after the RfA or other poll is closed. I have complained about this repeatedly, and nothing is ever done. Frankly, this behavior is inappropriate.
I would favor a rule that ANYONE who engaged in any such badgering or threatening be banned permanently on the first offense. And I would also ban anyone who complained that this kind of banning is unfair, or went off to whine offwiki about how unfair it is not to be allowed to attack fellow editors who vote the "wrong way". I do not think it would take very long before this very unpleasant part of wikiculture changed if such a plan was implemented. I personally am sick of the attacks and threats and bullying.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds a like like steamrolling to me.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- ... and certain editors who also happen to be administrators seem to feel that they are immune to those conventions. Because they are administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well they basically are immune... Beam 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- They are, or at least they appear to be, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- And what's worse is, after they browbeat and harass and intimidate users at an RfA and the RfA passes, they become more immune because they would now have another admin buddy. A buddy who will be thankful for the badgering performed for their benefit and will surely stand up for them in the future. Beam 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- They are, or at least they appear to be, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well they basically are immune... Beam 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tell me about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes the WP:CABAL is growing, sign up today! Seriously, if you feel browbeaten take it to the admin, or to arbcom if it's that bad, but this all just sounds like accusations of elitism and conspiracy theories. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're offering the arbcom or admin route to me, but I wasn't browbeaten, I did not oppose or even comment in this RfA at all. I was just pointing out what is happening. And why should someone have to put up with badgering in the first place? A constructive attitude wouldn't be "well if you feel that way goto arbcom", it would be "they shouldn't have to feel that way at all." Think about it. Beam 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes the WP:CABAL is growing, sign up today! Seriously, if you feel browbeaten take it to the admin, or to arbcom if it's that bad, but this all just sounds like accusations of elitism and conspiracy theories. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tell me about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Opposes that show the candidate won't make a good admin are fair and shouldn't be questioned. Ones that don't should be questioned. Any opposer that claims they are being "harrassed" or "badgered" should not have made a comment if they don't like to be responsible for what they say. Excuse my French as well, but it is fucking retarded to enter a discussion and not expect someone to reply to you, especially if your oppose is really rubbish too. People who enjoy opposing others (there are lots of people, sad I know) should expect a response, not get upset because someone dared to question it. The way to stop the apparently feeling of harrassment is to... stop making such crappy opposes! Simple as that :) Al Tally talk 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well "laddy", I have stopped voting entirely because of people with your attitude. And the next time I have a chance to talk to you in private, I will tell you what you can do with your attitude. How would you like a few personal threats? Think that would make this a nice editing environment for you? For anyone? Good grief. What a load. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- fyi I didn't oppose. I was reading other people get badgered. But if someone opposes because they feel the candidate doesnt' have a enough experience, why isn't that good enough? Why does an ardent supporter have to immediately say something along the lines of "What does that mean? Define experience."? Beam 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't help the candidate or the discussion. Experience is different for different people. Some like 3000 good edits, some like 10,000 just in the Wikipedia: space. It helps to show why they think the candidate is inexperienced. I could, for example support "Has good experience" when an opposer says "Is inexperienced". It doesn't help anything. Al Tally talk 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- You should be able to oppose without defending your opposition. If it's a shitty oppose than the crat will realize that. People should not fear reprisal for opposing. I think you understand but don't want to admit it. Or maybe you don't understand and I'm an idiot. Beam 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- And you should be able to reply to opposition to defend your candidacy or herald without having a river of cries from the opposition. Any and all who are unwilling to address the concerns of their opposition should be failed (in any sphere of society, whether on Wiki, or in federal politics) right then and there, as well as any and all opposition that's unwilling to have their opposition questionned. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem if you're replying to facts, but not an opinion. That's badgering. Beam 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't help the candidate or the discussion. Experience is different for different people. Some like 3000 good edits, some like 10,000 just in the Wikipedia: space. It helps to show why they think the candidate is inexperienced. I could, for example support "Has good experience" when an opposer says "Is inexperienced". It doesn't help anything. Al Tally talk 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) FWIW, in my limited experience with RfA, I think there is definitely a double standard where opposers are badgered but supporters are not. Sometimes supporters feel the need to counter to what they apparently see as spurious !opposes, but I rarely if ever do you see opposers challenge "per nom" or "don't see any problem" !supports that have been piled on long after numerous detailed opposes have been filed. I do think it's fine (and perhaps even to be encouraged) for the candidate and maybe even the nominator to respond to specific incidents mentioned in opposes and to tell their side of the story, but in most cases there's no need for others to badger opposers, and doing so doesn't help build the community or the encyclopedia, IMO. Yilloslime (t) 23:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's get a few things straight:
- editors do not always want to give their reasons for opposing, to avoid hurting the feelings of others, or revealing privileged information, or to avoid swaying the other participants
- editors should not have to defend their right to oppose
- editors should not feel harassed or bullied or badgered or intimidated for opposing.
- editors sometimes oppose because someone they trust has also opposed. This should not be a federal crime.
- getting revenge on someone for opposing 6 months ago, or a year or two ago is obscene and should result in an immediate ban.
- threatening to do something negative to someone who has voted to oppose in good faith is disgusting and should result in an immediate ban.
People who just are so full of themselves that they feel entitled to be bullies and demand the right to attack others should take a good hard look at themselves and the reasons they are on Wikipedia. You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know who exactly you're replying to, but please refrain from making personal attacks such as "You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me". Not only are your comments made from bad faith, but these are completely unproductive. No one has ever said anything about people not having the right to oppose. We're speaking about the right to question the opposition (or support). I don't like it is a downright poor argument that is disreguarded everywhere else on wikipedia, and I really don't see why it should be given special treament. You're fully entitled to not like something, but if you can't back it up by concrete reasons, and concrete facts, then it's non-admissible.
- And threats should not be met by an immediate ban, but rather a warning that such behaviour is unnacceptable and that the next instance will result in administrative actions. To immediatly ban removes the opportunity for people to retract their statements and will only lead to more bitterness when they are unbanned, and opens the door to widespread admin power abuse. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Immediate bans is a bad idea, but I also agree that badgering the opposers doesn't help. If you take a look at my RFA criteria (which I'm in the process of revamping), I think that badgering the opposers, unless the oppose !vote is really, uh, out there, kind of shows a lack of class. Useight (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it badgering? If a candidate is being opposed because the opposers have misunderstood something (for example, an RfA where a certain diff has been raised and regarded as a personal attack and opposition is rising, when in reality, the incident was friendly humor between two users), why would it be wrong for a candidate to respond to the opposition to clear things up? As along as the candidate is civil, I believe responding (to anyone in the RfA, not just opposition) shows that the candidate can communicate, and I try to look at it as a plus. Acalamari 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c)I think Filll's response (whomever it was in response to) was perfectly civil. I don't see any personal attacks. It's true. People with that mind set really are an embarassment to this project. We're building an Encyclopedia, not questioning Steve's evaluation of Jim at his RfA. An immediate ban would be fine. Warnings give everyone the mind set of "I can do it X ammount of times before I get punished", so without them it'd be "If I do this, I'll get punished". It would dramatically decrease how often the act is commited.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ban from what exactly? Questioning people with editcountitis and other strange ideas who clearly haven't the slightest clue what adminship is about is now a bannable offence? Good grief. Al Tally talk 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- And if you think someone politely asking to clarify your reasons is bullying, I suggest you take a look at some WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW RfAs where people enjoy piling on. That's what bullying is. Al Tally talk 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ban from what exactly? Questioning people with editcountitis and other strange ideas who clearly haven't the slightest clue what adminship is about is now a bannable offence? Good grief. Al Tally talk 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Immediate bans is a bad idea, but I also agree that badgering the opposers doesn't help. If you take a look at my RFA criteria (which I'm in the process of revamping), I think that badgering the opposers, unless the oppose !vote is really, uh, out there, kind of shows a lack of class. Useight (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok "Al": Obviously I am not talking about "politely asking someone to clarify their reasons". Let me try to show you what I mean. Let's suppose I hounded you for the next 10 kilobytes about your reasoning in this thread, and called you names, and insulted you, and threatened you personally and got a bunch of people to attack on you on-wiki and off-wiki for disagreeing with me in this thread. And then in a month, when you were involved in an AfD, we all showed up to say how stupid you are since you disagreed with me in this argument. And so we were getting "even" and getting our revenge. And then we did it again and again and again and again for the next 14 months. And then filed RfArs against you as "revenge" for you disagreeing with me today. And posted blog posts about how stupid and horrible you are for disagreeing with me today. And said all kinds of other uncivil things about you. And filed RfCs against you for the next year for the same reason.
- Would that seem rational to you? Would that seem like a friendly thing to do? Would that seem like a good way to build a productive collaborative community that worked well together? What if I obtained your personal information and made assorted threats against you and your family for your position in this argument? Would that seem like a reasonable response? Would that seem like a good way to work together in a collegial supportive environment?
- Or do you think that maybe, those sorts of extreme behaviors might be counterproductive?
- You see what I mean? This entire "attitude" of "let's attack that disgusting bastard he dared to oppose and therefore I hate his guts and want to see him dead" or "I don't like the fact that P.O.S. did not give a reason I like for his oppose so I am going to have a vendetta against him for the next year" just is fostering the worst possible environment. Do we want to volunteer to contribute work in an environment like that? Is it is constructive to allow people to vent and rant and spew hatred at other editors for something like a disagreement over an oppose?
- Obviously, a simple polite single question is no big deal. The problem comes is that the discussion is often not a single simple polite question, but an inquisition. And there can be threats. And people seeking revenge for months after. The entire atmosphere around these RfAs is poisonous because we do not stop the conversation at a single simple polite question. People feel justified in mounting a MAJOR attack on someone who does not vote the "right way". And frankly, that is bull. And needs to stop.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Al here (shocking, I know!). Banning/blocking is overkill. Trouting perhaps. But when I see someone opposing for the most ridiculous reasoning (you know who you are), I wanna throw something through my monitor. We should be finding reasons to support, not finding reasons to oppose. I can't think of a worse environment on or off wiki than RFA. What a shithole of a process. Even the word oppose is too harsh when talking about another human being. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- (3 e/c, my god magnum) Yeah, it should be bannable. If all someone's gonna do is bitch about somebody's vote because they don't like their rationale, I think a proper "Get lost" is in order. And nobody enjoys piling onto SNOW RfA's; assuming that is assuming bad faith.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Golden rule of wikipedia is WP:GOODFAITH. Immediate bans are the most blatant violations of WP:GOODFAITH I can think of. As for Filll's comment, it most certainly is a personal attack. See Ad hominem. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- No it's not. You apparently don't know the meaning of Ad Hominem and I recommend you take your own pointed advice and read it yourself, carefully. Beam 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Care to explain to me how "You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me" is not a textbook case of ad hominem? How does that statements address the quality of the arguments being made by whoever is the target of his ire? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ad Hominem does not mean insult. It does not mean insult someone when you are arguing with them. Ad Hominem means that you insult someone as part of the argument, as if that insult means you win the argument. Simply insulting someone or attacking them during an argument is not Ad Hominem. Like i said, you don't understand what Ad Hominem means apparently. Beam 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see. Who did I address that too? I addressed it to "People who just are so full of themselves that they feel entitled to be bullies and demand the right to attack others should take a good hard look at themselves and the reasons they are on Wikipedia. " It was not directed at any person in particular. It was not necessarily addressed to anyone in this thread even. It was addressed to anyone who feels they are entitled to be bullies. I guess if you put yourself in that category, you should be insulted. Do you think that you personally are entitled to be a bully? I would hope that most people reading this, if not all people, would read this and think "no I do not feel I should be acting like a bully, and I do not think anyone here should be acting like a bully". It is a statement that is more of a rhetorical nature. If it offends you, I apologize. If you want me to remove it, I will.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll accept apologies, but please understand that when you barge in a thread all guns blazing, placing a indented comment to the effect that anyone who questions an oppose vote is an embarrassment to wikipedia and a disgusting person that should be banned on sight, right after someone who said there's nothing wrong with questioning an oppose vote makes it look like you're replying to that user in a less-than-graceful way. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Headbomb, you shouldn't accept that apology, he shouldn't have apologized. You misrepresented what he said, you don't know what Ad Hominem means. And now you seem to just skip over all of the points Fill made. Beam 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll accept apologies, but please understand that when you barge in a thread all guns blazing, placing a indented comment to the effect that anyone who questions an oppose vote is an embarrassment to wikipedia and a disgusting person that should be banned on sight, right after someone who said there's nothing wrong with questioning an oppose vote makes it look like you're replying to that user in a less-than-graceful way. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Care to explain to me how "You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me" is not a textbook case of ad hominem? How does that statements address the quality of the arguments being made by whoever is the target of his ire? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Some like to say "HELL NO would make a crappy admin!!1!" I don't suppose people give a toss about how the candidate feels when they make opposes like that. The reason we don't question supports is the same reason we don't question other nice gestures - "Why did you give me that barnstar?" "Why did you buy me those flowers?" "Why did you get me that birthday present?" "Why are you such a nice friend?" We just do not ask. If someone does something unpleasant or nasty in real life, we question it. The same applies here. Al Tally talk 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Opposing isn't "unpleasent or nasty", it's part of process. If nobody were allowed to oppose anything, Wikipedia would suck.--Koji†Dude (C) 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- It most certainly is. Saying "no" to someone is something that should be avoided. It's hard to turn someone down for a job, right? The same should be here, but people don't find it as hard or awkward because they can't see the candidate. They don't care for their feelings. They simply enjoy their power to say "no" to someone, often for a really petty reason. I consider it a form of bullying. I didn't say we couldn't oppose anything. When we are dealing with a real life person, we should be sensitive in what we say, and not talk about them like they were no better than the mud on your shoe. We do for BLP AfDs, and we should have the same respect for our editors. Al Tally talk 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- So then, if Filll were to run for RfA, would you support him on that basis? Or if I were to run? Or what if WoW were to run? And if you should never say no to somemone, what if I started a poll to replace the Wikipedia logo with a gigantic ass, with the words "FUCK" on the left cheeck, and "YOU" on the right cheeck? Would opposing be "unpleasent or nasty" then?--Koji†Dude (C) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not on that basis. I never said I never oppose. I do oppose people. I haven't said that we should "never say no ever". We should, when making opposes, be polite, be fair, be nice, be helpful and prepare to reply to people without kicking up a silly fuss about it. Whenever I make an oppose (or a support for that matter) I always reply without complaint. Why can't others do the same? Al Tally talk 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- So then, if Filll were to run for RfA, would you support him on that basis? Or if I were to run? Or what if WoW were to run? And if you should never say no to somemone, what if I started a poll to replace the Wikipedia logo with a gigantic ass, with the words "FUCK" on the left cheeck, and "YOU" on the right cheeck? Would opposing be "unpleasent or nasty" then?--Koji†Dude (C) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- It most certainly is. Saying "no" to someone is something that should be avoided. It's hard to turn someone down for a job, right? The same should be here, but people don't find it as hard or awkward because they can't see the candidate. They don't care for their feelings. They simply enjoy their power to say "no" to someone, often for a really petty reason. I consider it a form of bullying. I didn't say we couldn't oppose anything. When we are dealing with a real life person, we should be sensitive in what we say, and not talk about them like they were no better than the mud on your shoe. We do for BLP AfDs, and we should have the same respect for our editors. Al Tally talk 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Opposing isn't "unpleasent or nasty", it's part of process. If nobody were allowed to oppose anything, Wikipedia would suck.--Koji†Dude (C) 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- No it's not. You apparently don't know the meaning of Ad Hominem and I recommend you take your own pointed advice and read it yourself, carefully. Beam 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Golden rule of wikipedia is WP:GOODFAITH. Immediate bans are the most blatant violations of WP:GOODFAITH I can think of. As for Filll's comment, it most certainly is a personal attack. See Ad hominem. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- But some do not want to reply. Maybe they have some privileged reason for not supporting that they are sworn to keep private, for example. Is that a problem?
- And what if you are not asked just once or twice about your oppose, but 29 times why you oppose? And when you give your answers, you are told your answers are invalid and others argue with you over and over and tell you that you are stupid for opposing. Or worse. And this goes on over and over and over and over. And then someone threatens you for daring to oppose. Does that sound like a pleasant experience to you?
- THAT is when things cross from the reasonable to the unreasonable. And that is why there has to be a change in direction at these "votes".--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You would only have to ban someone once or twice, and the message would get around pretty quickly. If you warn editors two, three, four, five, ten, 20, 30, 50 times, and do not act, then eventually the rule has no meaning. Just like things are currently. In principle, it is highly uncivil to threaten people, and it violates the banning policy against coercion, but since we do not enforce it, it is ignored and meaningless. In principle, it is highly uncivil to say "I am doing bad thing X to you since you opposed me/ my friend/ editor Y at RfA 6 months ago, or a year ago". However, I have seen this several times. And no one bats an eye. It is just "business as usual" and totally expected. And people start to expect that it is their right to take these kinds of actions and make these kinds of statements.
I disagree. This is all part and parcel of the idea that it is permitted, and expected, that people opposing should have the ^%$#@ beat out of them for daring to oppose. Well I say that is a stupid attitude. And if the voting is to mean anything, people have to be allowed to vote "oppose" without being attacked. Or badgered. Or threatened. Or someone taking revenge on them later for daring to oppose. If your goal is just to operate like some sort of criminal enterprise and brutalize other editors, then maybe Wikipedia is not for you. I thought Wikipedia was actually about creating an encyclopedia. I did not think it was some sort of a social club and an excuse for you to attack others at meaningless "votes" like RfA.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that revenge opposes are bad and should be discounted. Al Tally talk 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Al Tally spoke of "bullying" by piling-on. I'm doing a small study about piling-on and I should be done with it in the near future. I'm interested to see the results and I'll put them on this talk page when it's ready. Useight (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've been accused of seeking revenge or holding grudges against editors who have never wronged me. It is impossible to create a working definition of "revenge oppose". Go ahead and try. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. --JayHenry (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, folks, calm down. AGF doesn't only apply to people who are opposing - it also applies to the folks who engage the opposers. On occassion it looks like badgering, sometimes it can get impolite, but I don't think I've ever seen it get nearly as bad as Fill describes above. Its important, for the candidate and for other participants, to understand what the opposers feel the problems are. A detailed and rational oppose can have a huge effect on a request (and rightly so), while an unexplained oppose will prompt people to wonder "Why is this person opposing? Is there something we should know?" Not to mention the not unusual situation where an oppose is based on a misunderstanding of some sort, and a bit of discussion clears things up. At any rate, few people who can be accused of "badgering opposers" on RfAs read this talkpage and hardly anything can be done about it from here. Best to address these people on their talkpage or the RfA itself, if you wish to correct the problem you perceive. Avruch 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, but unfortunately I see many more "oppose hounds" who seem to have thrown their assumptions of good faith in the garbage prior to their "questioning" of an oppose than you do. Beam 01:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know. I haven't been around Wikipedia as long as many, but I've been reading through most RfAs at least cursorily for about 8 or 9 months. Your first edit (as Beamathan) was in March, so maybe if you give it a few more months you'll have a better sense of what happens on a regular basis. I think that the threshold of considering a response "oppose hounding" is probably too high - engaging with critics, either by the candidate or others, for the purpose of explication is not going to be a bad thing in itself. Only if it becomes impolite or personal should it be considered in poor taste or disruptive to the process. Avruch 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone should become desensitized to the harassment of oposers, so I hope after I'm here for 9 months I don't "get used" to it. Beam 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said before, it's not harassment to respond to people, opposers included, in RfAs. Harassment is something totally different to discussion, and in my opinion, it's not a word to be used lightly. Acalamari 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone should become desensitized to the harassment of oposers, so I hope after I'm here for 9 months I don't "get used" to it. Beam 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know. I haven't been around Wikipedia as long as many, but I've been reading through most RfAs at least cursorily for about 8 or 9 months. Your first edit (as Beamathan) was in March, so maybe if you give it a few more months you'll have a better sense of what happens on a regular basis. I think that the threshold of considering a response "oppose hounding" is probably too high - engaging with critics, either by the candidate or others, for the purpose of explication is not going to be a bad thing in itself. Only if it becomes impolite or personal should it be considered in poor taste or disruptive to the process. Avruch 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I can fully accept that Beam and Filll and others above believe that people are being harassed badgered, etc... but just like with such a claim made at an actual RfA where are the diffs? Where are the plethora of ArbComm cases and RfC's indicative of such a widespread and horrendous issue? I haven't seen them, and you saying "it happens, I've seen it" isn't convincing anyone. Moreover, pointing at the aether and claiming that all who badger opposers "disgust" you makes any of us who have ever questioned an opposer defensive. What does your definition of badgering cover, does a question of an opposer's reasoning in good faith make your list of badgering opposes? I for one have no idea. I agree that the example given above is absolutely unacceptable, but where does it leave good faith discussion and reach this bannable state you call badgering? Assume far a few seconds that some of us understand your argument but still disagree with you. Just show us the diffs that show this 14 month badgering spree you talk about, or even an oppose over a single vote six months ago. I might be convinced by that but hand waving isn't good enough. Adam McCormick (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I invite you to take a look at my talk page where I describe, with diffs, a couple of cases. However, I have seen more than these; the situations I list on my talk page were just the easiest to dig up quickly.
- Although I admit that people are likely curious when they see someone oppose with no explanation, they have to accept that sometimes the opposer does not want to reveal any more information. The information might be sensitive, it might make the candidate feel bad, it might overly sway the other voters in a fashion the opposer does not want to do, it might lead to further unpleasantness. Maybe one could start a precedent where opposers who do not want to be questioned could put a short notation after their "vote" signalling their willingness or unwillingness to explain further, that others would respect. In the past, requests by opposers that they not be questioned have not been respected, leading to lots of unpleasantness.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you're unwilling to discuss and defend your vote, then don't vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy (or rather it should not be, because right now that's what it seems to be). Discussion is infinitely more important than votes, especially votes made by people who aren't willing to justify and discuss them. This is the way it works for FAC and FLC reviews, and it works very well. This isn't the way it works here, and look at all the problems it causes. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- RfA is a vote. If you've got 5 supports with people giving some good reasons, but 58 opposes that were all just name signs, it'll be closed as un-succesful.--Koji†Dude (C) 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Isn't the rule on wikipedia, be it RFA, AFD etc. that you go for consensus. In case of RFA with 5 good reasons in favor and 58 votes to oppose without giving any reasons, granting the RFA would be a decision that is consistent with the reasons given by the 5 voters who are in favor, and it is also consistent with all the reasons given by the opponents (as there were none). If you don't grant RFA, you ignore the arguments of the 5 who are in favor. I don't see any valid reasons why you could do that in such a case. Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately policy and rules do not always match reality as the "Free Encyclopedia Anyone can Edit!". Beam 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- (5/58/0) seems unlikely. Where it gets tricky is when it's (58/24/0). This is where the bureaucrat's discerning mind comes into play. So, yes, it is a vote - to a point. But when it gets into the grey area of the margin, some RfAs will succeed that have lower support percentages than other RfAs that have failed. Kingturtle (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Isn't the rule on wikipedia, be it RFA, AFD etc. that you go for consensus. In case of RFA with 5 good reasons in favor and 58 votes to oppose without giving any reasons, granting the RFA would be a decision that is consistent with the reasons given by the 5 voters who are in favor, and it is also consistent with all the reasons given by the opponents (as there were none). If you don't grant RFA, you ignore the arguments of the 5 who are in favor. I don't see any valid reasons why you could do that in such a case. Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
<undent>I am willing to discuss my vote sometimes. Othertimes, I am voting based on information I would rather not discuss or reveal. If you don't like that, then maybe you don't need to be participating in these polls.
What I am unwilling to put up with is:
- being attacked as "revenge" for voting "incorrectly" on an RfA six months or a year or more previously.
- being threatened with outing, or worse, for voting "the wrong way" on an RfA
- being the target of RfCs and RfArs because I did not support the "right candidate" on an RfA.
- being called names and worse at assorted offwiki sites such as blogs operated by Wikipedians, or offwiki attack sites, for voting in a politically incorrect fashion on an RfA or other poll.
These types of harassment are nonsense and have no place on a website like Wikipedia.
The reason I am disconcerted by the "discussions" after every oppose vote is they create a very negative atmosphere. And they often go way beyond what is reasonable and polite. And these "discussions" more often than not turn into angry fights. And this contributes to the impression that some editors have that anyone who votes the wrong way (that is, usually oppose) is a suitable target for intimidation, for harassment, for badgering, for threats, for vengeance, for personal attacks, for pestering, for persecution, for torment, and other assorted irritations. And worse. And since no one does anything about this, or speaks out against it (particularly those in positions of authority like administrators or arbitrators), this emboldens the harassers. They feel confident. They feel justified. It is their "right" to attack those filthy $#@% jerks that opposed them at RfA, or opposed their friends at RfA, etc.
I even see this in this thread. Some claim that even opposing anyone at all is harassment and must be stamped out (except possibly those editors that they personally decide are "politically incorrect" - maybe for not wanting to unblock a notorious troll, or for making a negative comment about Wikipedia Review. Heaven forbid that anyone would say anything negative about Wikipedia Review! Oh my !!).
So I ask you, if you are so sure that you are correct, why not propose mandatory banning of anyone who ever votes to oppose? Just ban immediately.
If you are so %$#^& sure of your position, then I dare you. Go ahead and propose it. Make it at Administrator's Noticeboard, say. And let's see how far it gets. If you don't want to take me up on this challenge, clearly you are not so serious after all, right?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoa! After reading through the wall of text above, I think one note hasn't been made yet. I think that oppose !votes can reasonably expect to receive more scrutiny than a "Yayz support!" because an oppose is essentially five times as significant as a support, based on the rough 80% guideline applied towards determining consensus. If someone fires off an opposition that seems unclear or ill supported and it single handedly "wipes out" 5 supports, then requesting clarification would seem appropriate. Hounding is crap, though, and this is not an endorsement of hounding. Polite discussion should always be the goal, but an oppose !vote can also be far more useful to the project and the candidate if it helps identify an area of improvement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Filll, please clam down. Anyone with half an ounce of decency agrees that harassment is disruptive behaviour. If you are harassed, then RfC for said harassers, and if things don't improve go to ArbCom. You could also make a request to bureaucrats to crack down the whip at harassers, to ban harassers from RfA (after a stern cease and desist warning of course), and to remove harass votes as they appear rather the de-facto non-involvement policy that seems to be followed right now. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- He appears calm to me. Beam 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
All good suggestions. So far, my efforts to highlight this problem have not been successful, but I am not giving up. Since you have some good ideas, maybe you would like to informally join me in my campaign to modify our culture a bit to discourage this kind of activity?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I'm there, believe me. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Although this thread is a bit old and soon to be archived, I invite comments on User:Filll/Peaceful Polling Pledge--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)