Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussion. For current discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship.

User page

do you mean a developed "user page" or a developed "talk page"? i've never seen an object based on an underdeveloped user page, and i would never dream of objecting on those grounds.(Understandable, given my user page!) Borisblue 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I thought user page. I do look at a user's user page, and I do like to see something that is neat and organized. I think user's pages evolve over time, and I think there are things you can see in a user's page that has been involved for a longer time. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have seen an objection based on the lack of a user page. I don't recall there ever being an objection to a poorly developed userpage. --Durin 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd noticed it somewhere, in someone's criteria. However, I don't recall it being used as the basis for a vote. The Land 09:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyedits

Did a run through of the article. Changes include:

• RFA -> RfA. I think that looks prettier and is within normal usage on the wiki.
• "Concensus" to "Consensus". That's how Wikipedia:Consensus spells it at least.
• re-worded some uses of "you" to be more general, specifically in contexts of negative possibilities that will not apply to all candidates, so I tried to make it less personal, i.e. "A dildo, not your dildo".

Kudos to those who wrote this, I think it is well needed.

Cheers, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been very pleased with the developments on the article. With respect to RFA vs. RfA; I find myself regularly typing RfA. I used RFA here to match "GRFA". But, I agree that RfA is the accepted abbreviation. Keep working on this everybody! It's coming along nicely. --Durin 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement removed

I removed this statement made by Klonimus: "In practice that means that editor's involved certain area's have a very low chance of sucessful adminship. Particularly contentious areas include the Arab-Israeli conflict, and any political conflict involving muslims as an aggrieved party."

I'm particularly concerned that such a statement will dissuade strong, conscientious editors who want to be an admin some day from participating on contentious articles on Wikipedia. I think this is precisely the opposite outcome from what we would like to see. Further, even if we are to include such a statement in this guide, I think it needs to be substantiated with evidence to support such a trend.--Durin 16:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to propose an example: my nomination of Thames: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thames. He works almost exlusively on controversial political philosophy articles, yet he passed his RFA easily. His only objections were because of his unwillingness to do sysop chores. If you are civil, you can placate even the most rabid POV-warrior. Borisblue 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. I noted in the guide that participation in conflicts could actually help an RfA, if the nominee's behavior during the conflict was exemplary. --Durin 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's too darn long!

As per Durin's maxim, this thing is never going to be read. I think we need a concise version or something. Borisblue 17:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• See? I told all of you so :) The scope of this document is a very worthy scope. However, for a person considering accepting a nomination or nominating themselves...wow. I just can't imagine it being read for that purpose. --Durin 17:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• If they arent willing to read something this long, then they probably arent suited. Basicly I'd like to see a document that avoids what happened in Anonyme's case, where a contentious editor didn't expect quite as much opposition as came up. Klonimus 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Personally, I was interested in adminship within about two weeks of signing up for an account, but it didn't take me long to figure out that I was going to have a to wait a good long while before that would happen. However, prior to nominating myself, I spent several months lurking on RfA, watching nominations and the Talk page, and reading the Admin's reading list on occasion to better understand the role. If this guide had existed during that time, I would have studied it closely. Granted, I can't speak for every RfA candidate, but I think those who will be good administrators will carefully examine this. That being said, I do think we should strive as much as we can to trim down excess verbage, and it might even be worth trying to write a condensed guide, I'm not sure. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Continued improvement of the guide

Everybody; I'm very pleased with the continued improvement of the guide. Already within 24 hours we've had a bunch of edits by eight different contributors. Fantastic! I think we've really brought out a good project that's been needed for quite some time, and the interest in contributing to the article seems to confirm that. Keep it up! I'd like to see this worked on for a few more days at least before we integrate it as a link on WP:RFA. There's still more material that needs to be added. Yes, I know, that makes it longer :) But, as the Guide to RfA it's not just for nominees anymore. <Dory>"Just keep editing, just keep editing..."</Dory> --Durin 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Email requirement

Very useful page taking shape here.

What about the "requirement" that you accept e-mail? Should that get listed in here? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nichalp keeps raising it, and as a result has raised the community's awareness of that criterion. I agree, it should be added. I'll add it now. --Durin 15:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Are we going to add in everything one person (and while I don't watch RFA very closely, I think it's only one) raises for every nomination for a few weeks running? Netoholic opposed nearly every candidate for a similar amount of time a few months back, on the basis that he couldn't trust borderline cases when there was no process to remove adminship; if he were doing that now, would it get plopped here, too? I think this would be better off staying on the standards page, where it's already listed in Nichalp's section. (Yes, yes, Netoholic's criteria wasn't one that the individual candidates could address, but you get my point.) —Cryptic (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That's something I've been ruminating over too, Cryptic. I fear instruction creap is going to cause this guide to become bloated. It's probably best to trim the list to things which at least a few frequent RfA contributors find important qualities for a nominee and monitor the list over time. The standards page I think has a fundamental flaw; it doesn't keep up with RfA culture as it evolves over time, and can lead potential nominees to think those are the current acceptable standards. The real standards, for better or worse, keep evolving. RfA contributors who review the standards page will not modify the standards by X user for obvious reasons. Plus, the standards page is not summarized in any way; it's just a list of individual views. The person reading it is left on their own to summarize the overall situation; and that summary would be lacking because it is not up to date.--Durin 14:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I've rearranged that section so that edit summaries and email address seem to have less weight than other factors (and, now I think of it, will trim out user pages too...). I also took the comments about starting inapporpriate AfDs and moved them to the Intransigence section. The Land 15:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

On qualities as an editor

One extract: Some editors have left Wikipedia as a consequence of an RfA that has gone poorly. This should not be a consequence, as this process does not judge an editor's value to Wikipedia. Like it or not, to some extent it is just this. True, I don't recall votes saying something like "Oppose, crummy editor", but I do often see variations on Extreeem supercalifragialisticexpialadocious support! Putativeadmin is a great editor!" -- Hoary 06:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• In some sense, this guide should be a reflection of what RfA is supposed to be. From my view, too many people confuse the merits of an editor with the merits of a potential admin. The two have little in common. I think the guide can help to bring home that point. Thought? --Durin 15:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that will confuse things more. It would be more helpful as a guide to what (fortunately or unfortunately) actually does (or may) happen, and what the nominee should and shouldn't do to anticipate, avoid, or react to this. (Indeed, it announces: This is only a guide to current practice on WP:RFA, not policy.) So for example: The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's popularity or strength as an editor. Fine: this expressly says that the process is not intended as X, and not that it is not X. However: I still object to This should not be a consequence, as this process does not judge an editor's value to Wikipedia. Let's look at one recent successful nomination, which kicked off with: Tomf688 has been with us for over a year and has over 9,000 edits to his credit. He has made many quality contributions to articles about political figures and events and more recently to articles involving hurricanes and related areas. A strong proponent of Neutral point of view and Civility it is my pleasure to nominate this fine contributor. (Sorry for stripping links here and elsewhere.) Note how he's primarily nominated for his edits. (Conceivably, only nominated for them: the wording makes it possible that the NPoV and civility are his own, and are not related to others' infractions of them.) It's only when we get to the 12th support vote that we read of vandal-fighting, and most of the support votes either praise his editing or give no reasoning at all. He gets a single and, uh, somewhat predictable oppose vote. The sole neutral vote politely suggests that however good an editor he may be, he lacks sufficient experience in just those areas that this guide tends to claim are all-important. Although that vote/comment came six days before the end of the RfA, nobody saw fit to argue with it -- it's as if they thought it was unimportant. (NB (i) I have no opinion on this user and do not intend to say he's not worthy of being an admin; (ii) all my comments are those of something of an outsider: I've never been in the hot seat myself.) -- Hoary 02:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comments Hoary, all of them. Discussion within and related to RfA over the last month have left me feeling that no concensus is ever going to be reached on how to improve RfA. There are some very strong opinions on a whole host of matters. I'm now fairly convinced that there needs to be some feedback mechanism to measure the RfA process. Failing feedback mechanisms (which are going to be very, very difficult to create), control structures are the next best reasonable means of conducting the RfA process in any semblance of order. Once this guide goes live, people will be using it as a reference point. I'm especially keen to see how the section on advice for RfA contributors evolves. Regardless of how we proceed on this guide, it will have an influence on the culture of RfA. If we use it simply to model current RfA behavior, it might serve only to confirm the current behavior as acceptable and normal. I think this would be a bad thing. There's a troubling trend developing. Since October 17, we've had 49 RfAs brought (not including Stevertigo's which was a very unusual case). Of those, 16 were withdrawn/closed early. That's roughly a third of all RfAs in that time period. Prior to this, the going rate was about 10%. Two weeks may be insufficient to provide a valid statistical basis that something is wrong, but it is at least troubling. If we use this guide as only a statement on what RfA is now, it might actually make things worse. Having some standards that contributors are expected to abide by would be a positive step in my opinion. --Durin 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There's something in what you say, Durin, but I think that the relevant howto/policy/whatever pages explain what people should be doing fairly well, and of course if if anyone thinks they don't then he's welcome to change them -- or at least to suggest changes on the relevant talk page. I really thought that this was to be a guide to what may well happen, and how to avoid the worst of it (or how to ride though it without getting too seasick), and perhaps even how to make it moderately pleasant (which I suspect it usually is). I don't think that a pretence that the process is other than it is is helpful for this. But I take your point that it's not good to do anything that encourages more silliness. Then how about just skipping anything about how people are or aren't nominated or voted for on the strength of their edits? I do like the miniguide, to which my main addition would be: "Look at what happened for some recent successes, and also choose among some of these failures". (I might phrase it more invitingly/politely: I'm just a bit sleepy now.) -- Hoary 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

New General advice for RfA contributors section

I've filled out the General advice for RfA contributors section. Probably needs improvement. There's some replication of earlier material. Not sure that needs to be resolved per se though. --Durin 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can anyone point out when a vote of Extreme Mega Ultra Lesbian Support has resulted in 'consternation'? The Land 10:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ed Poor (current admin, former bureaucrat) modifed a number of votes on my RfA [1] that had a number of similar votes. Also, it's been mentioned before on RfA talk. --Durin 14:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Not sure that 'consternation' isn't a step too far though. (Also is there a case that powerful expressions of support are a good thing - counterbalancing the powerful negativity?) The Land 14:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Doubtful. Votes are votes, be they support or zOMG! HE'S NOT AN ADMIN ALREADY! HOW CAN ANYONE VOTE OPPOSE?!?!?!! ULTRA SUPER MAJOR MEGA MASSIVE UBER LESBIAN TRAPPED IN MALE BODY SUPPORT (and Jimbo help us if votes get that ridiculous! :) --Durin 15:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Mmm. I take the point, but I think RfA candidates are as affected by the tone of comments as the actual votes. Isn't the point of this guide to stop people going home because someone's said "I will never vote for anyone who's too stupid to use edit summaries" or suchlike? The Land 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think the point is to encourage decorum on RfA. We can't be accountable for nominee's reactions to their RfA. Harsh as this sounds, Wikipedia is not counseling service. We should strive to run RfA in as fair a manner as possible. If we make good faith efforts to do that (such as this guide), how a nominee responds to their RfA isn't something for which we should be held accountable. --Durin 15:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA Mini-Guide

I have started a Mini-Guide which basically replicate most of what is here in a very minimalist way. Please check it out and comment. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Good piece of work. I do think it needs to evolve some. I feel very strongly that it needs to be as concise as possible. I've made earlier comments about the likelihood of GRFA actually being read. The miniguide would help to fill what I think is a void in the process that GRFA will not fill. So, more development, but keep it concise, and only bring up major tripping points. Leave the substantial content and less major tripping points to GRFA. --Durin 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What more do you think I should add or remove? It is a wiki, so you can do it yourself if you really wanted to, but I only got around to doing it for the nominees. Do you think that section needs more? Perhaps something like what was mentioned a few lines up? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'll add some later. Head down in the trenches right now :) --Durin 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Developing consensus and all that

We now read: RfA is the means by which the Wikipedia community develops concensus on whether an editor should be given Administrator rights.... I believe that consensus is the more normal spelling. True, the voters don't decide, a bureaucrat decides. But as I understand it, the bureaucrat almost always follows a clear algorithm for what to do when there are certain patterns of votes: in effect, the voters decide. And look, rather than all this worthy but windy stuff about how the Wikipedia community develops consensus etc, can't this just be a straightforward guide to what to do and what not to do? (Policy is already explained elsewhere.) Increasingly, the Mini-Guide seems a more palatable alternative. -- Hoary 15:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The concensus spelling is my error. As for vote vs. consensus (just had to correct my typo of it again! :)), in case where the votes clear 80%, there is a clear algorithm. For the marginal cases, bureaucrats have a very difficult job and must discern consensus (and typo again!). They most definitely do decide, and there is no clear algorithm for the 70-80% cases. RfA policy isn't explained elsewhere in whole, and that is one of the reasons for this guide. The mini-guide is useful, in fact quite so. But, it's targeted audience is potential nominees only. That's a limited subset of RfA. --Durin 16:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the limited scope of the mini-guide. I had only started it, and haven't finished it (it's a wiki, so will it ever really be finished? 8^) ). I have added the header for other conributors, but was too busy yesterday to really add anything substantive. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• If I might suggest, let's limit the mini-guide strictly to advice for nominees. Else the scope of the mini-guide and GRFA are the same. Plus, the longer the mini-guide the less likely it will be read by a nominee. --Durin 17:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fine if that's the way people think we should go. I was just originally thinking it would be a guide with the same scope as the full guide, but much more concise and informal. Perhaps just include brief advice for nominees and brief advice for "voters". Exclude advice for nominators, and all that consensus stuff. I guess the question is, How long is too long? People are much more likely to read bullet points, I think, and that could allow for more stuff. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think the goal of the mini-guide should be to get would-be nominees from accepting or making nominations of themselves before they are ready. Beyond that, I think the GRFA should be used. --Durin 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I am going to move it into the Wikipedia namespace. Now for a title... I'll get back to you all. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have listed a few possible titles at the sandbox now. What should the title be? I think I prefer Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship, but am not sure which would be best. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think I prefer WP:MGRFA and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship. One thing though; if this guide is going to focus entirely on nominees, perhaps the title needs to reflect that in some short way. --Durin 20:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some short way". Ha. Okay, how about Wikipedia:Nominees' miniguide to requests for adminship and WP:NMGRFA. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't say I had the answer :-) How about Wikipedia:Nominee guide to RfA and WP:NGRFA? --Durin 00:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a little wary of using NGRFA because it seems a little close to "nigger". I don't think we should be responsible for how people perceive things, but I'm just trying to look out for all angles. We don't want people trying to shout down this because of a perceived racial slur. Maybe I'm just looking to hard into it. Plus the offical title should probably be spelled out. Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship (nominee) and WP:MGRFA? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The guide makes enough mention of RfA contributors, and in my opinion WP:MRFA and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship work well. It would be worth stressing that contributors must Strictly observe Wikipedia:Civility. ...dave souza 02:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Explaining the obvious, etc.

Before my recent edit:

*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected out of hand based on that simple measure. Whether that is proper or not is beyond the scope of this guide. A nominee with less than 1,000 edits needs to accept that it is what happens. Being prepared to answer such concerns is in the best interest of the nominee. Nominations of editors below 1,000 edits have succeeded in the past. A potential nominee should not assume they should not accept a nomination if they have less than 1,000 edits. Rather, they should be prepared to respond on this point or better yet explain up front in their nomination acceptance why they think they would nevertheless make a good administrator. Those with more than 1,000, but well under 2,000, edits may face concerns but many such nominees have passed. [plus stuff about three months]

After my recent edit, the rather less wordy:

*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. [plus stuff about three months]

After a more recent edit (not by me!), a reintroduction of the <2000wd stuff:

*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. Editors with less than three months of active experience on Wikipedia can expect similar concerns. Those editors with more than 1,000, but well under 2,000, edits may face concerns but many such nominees have passed.

I'm asked (in edit summaries) to explain my edits on this discussion page. All right then: If people with fewer than X edits are less likely to succeed but yet may still succeed, isn't it pretty obvious that people with between X and 2X edits may have some trouble but are more likely to succeed? Nudge them to look at earlier RfAs and they'd then see for themselves various edit counts and results.

My new, improved version:

*Nominees with fewer than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many nominations have been rejected for this alone. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to explain why you nevertheless believe you're qualified. Better, explain this before you're asked. [plus stuff about three months]

Unless perhaps we accept that some among the potential administrator nominees are thick, and therefore need everything explained ever so gently and ploddingly. But wait: such people may not be able to digest such a monstrous quantity of text.

Short and simple does it. -- Hoary 15:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The reason for the inclusion of the commentary about 1000-2000 edits is based on a study I performed and is not capricious (I know you didn't say it was). Please see the results of the study. Indeed, 1-2k edits is an area of concern and needs to be expressed here in this guide. That's why I included it. Removal of it would lead admin nominees to think that once they clear 1,000 edits, they're far more certain to pass. The results of the study contradict this conclusion. I don't want admin nominees to have to clear 2,000 edits before they get a serious consideration, but that's the current pattern. It needs to be reflected here. --Durin 17:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And, does the brevity really matter here? If we intend to move the mini-guide into the Wikipedia namespace, this can be, and should be, as detailed as possible. We should strive to be as helpful as possible and every angle should be looked at. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the message at the head of this section last night when I was perhaps rather too tired and grumpy; sorry if this shows. OK, keep the stuff about 2000 edits if you wish. However, it occurs to me that a better alternative -- and for a lot of numbers and percentages, not only this one -- would be a table: each row would be the issue ("Total number of edits", "Use of edit summaries", etc.), one column would be "Frequently used as a criterion for automatic disqualification" (or a better-phrased variant thereof), another would be "Satisfies virtually everybody" (or ditto). One could supplement these columns with another, "Quasi-official policy, as expressed in Wikipedia:Very authoritative article" (or ditto), if this seemed helpful. Even if a lot of the cells in the resulting table were "N/A" (for "not applicable") or even "?", that would save a lot of space. It wouldn't be necessary to explain the rationale for most of the rows (anybody thinking of becoming an admin or nominating another as admin should know about edit summaries, for example) or to pretend that there is a rationale for what are necessarily rather arbitrary cut-off points.

Yes, I keep harping on the need for brevity. LV says that this guide can be, and should be, as detailed as possible. We should strive to be as helpful as possible and every angle should be looked at. By all means look at every (non-trivial) angle and give every (non-trivial) detail, but one measure of helpfulness is digestibility, and a major factor in digestibility is brevity. Or that's what I believe, but I start to infer that I'm in a minority here. -- Hoary 00:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think everyone's goal is to have this be a valuable tool to RfAs, but we need to explain things to people. That is the point of having a miniguide. That way, people can get the info and if they have more questions, they can check with the full guide. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Diffs for "Other controversy"?

I've noticed demands for the mysterious Diffs, and eventually the instruction to right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location" to get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post. Is this something all potential Admins are expected to either know, or be capable of finding out themselves, or should such instructions be included in the Other controversy section? ...dave souza 19:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Can you show me the diffs showing the demands? Just kidding :) Seriously, I don't see all that many requests for it. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to provide some very simple directions on that point. --Durin 01:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say that some people were making a big issue of someone's inability to provide diffs in a recent high profile case. Sounds worthwhile to provide simple instructions, or a link to where they're found. For Mac OS X users it's ctrl-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy Link to Clipboard" to get a diff : presumably we should be platform agnostic ...dave souza 19:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ready to go live?

Status: This guide was first created on October 27, almost two weeks ago. We've made notice of the existence of this page on the bureaucrat's noticeboard (and two bureaucrats have made contributions to the page) 9 days ago. Mention of this guide has appeared on some RfAs and on the talk page of RfA. 95 edits have been made to the page so far.

Are we ready to go live? Comments? --Durin 14:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is ready. It can always be changed, and will do more good than not having it available. I say go for it. It is pretty good already, and once it "goes live", it will only improve. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The Land 15:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And the mini-guide? Ready? --Durin 17:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it is now in the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship. I will leave the copy in my sandbox as to not upset any links that are currently out there. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait a while for the miniguide. Only LV and David Souza have edited so far (I've just made one edit as well) and I feel Durin at least should vet it thoroughly. The miniguide might arguably be more important than the guide, since, its brevity will ensure that it will be more widely read (per Durin's maxim). Borisblue 06:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is in the Wikipedia namespace, so whomever wants to can edit it. And I think it's silly to say that Durin has to vet it. It's a wiki, we don't need one person to approve something. And Durin isn't King of RfA... Maybe Duke. A kick-ass Duke. Thanks Tenacious D. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have to vet it. I've read it and found some areas where I think it could be improved (references in the first person for example), but I haven't made changes. And no, I'm not Duke of RfA :) I won't have any time to get to this over the next few days as I've been charged in an RfC, and responding there is going to consume virtually all my Wiki time. The first I may have a chance is next week. I don't know. --Durin 18:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I know... I was just quoting a Tenacious D song. You do do a lot around RfA and I think most people appreciate your work. I saw that there was an RfC on you and haven't gotten around to checking it out yet. I'll make sure to swing by though. The first person stuff in the MGRFA was there because it was simply an informal way of saying what I wanted to say. I could have used "we" and "our", but didn't really care enough about being proper. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah... and I said doodoo. Hehe. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How about we redirect this to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? This is the worst example of instruction creep that I've seen in ages. Ambi 07:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

First let me say, it is not instruction creep. There are no instructions. It is merely a guide to help people with their RfAs. People botch them all the time and this is to help. It is not policy, it is not even a guideline. It is as it's title suggests, a guide. Nothing more. We are not changing anything, we are simply explaining what happens. I guess we do reiterate some policies, but that is not instruction creep either. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very complete and well put together, nice work. The one worry I have is that folks will start citing this document in oppose votes or using it to de-list nominations. The top of the page does everything but flash on and off telling people not to do that but past experience tells me people will anyway. Editors should be encouraged not to cite this document in RFA "votes" but to refer to the policy/guideline itself.

One other thing, there's a section talking about how people can help with chores. There's a lot of backlogs that non-admins can participate in to show admin-like work. WP:CP, requested moves and more. People tend to hit AFD pretty quick and it really isn't suffering a backlog, some of the other tasks could use some wider exposure. Rx StrangeLove 07:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

On balance I think this is unnecessary and, where it solidifies the impression of RfA as an ugly process, counter-productive (see WP:BEANS). I wish there were more general support for Ambi's idea of redirecting to WP:RFA, but as there isn't I just edited out the worst of the editcountitis stuff, and removed some of the clutter. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• And gutted some portions. Since it's unlikely we'll agree (you and I tend to agree on nothing), I don't see this resource moving ahead. I'd be in favor of deleting this document; what better way to get RfA to be more civil than to have it utterly collapse? --Durin 21:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

He did sort of kill the point of the page. I suggest instead of deleting it, make it a user page. That way, the information is still there for people who really care, but won't be changed by outsiders. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm becoming increasingly of the opinion that many things here are incapable of being resolved in a manner that works; signficant things are having death by committee inflicted upon them. This guide, which was proceeding nicely, is just the latest victim. It's kinda like politics; a great bill gets introduced, then becomes hopelessly watered down by all sorts of changes to it. What gets passed is ultimately useless. Not that a guide such as this is a "bill", but it has now suffered the same fate. For example, we apparently can't even tell a person what consensus in this context means...even though it's been the environment for quite some time. --Durin 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Not really, I've replaced several sections that shouldn't have been removed, because this page is not policy, it is an attempt to tell potential nominees what they should expect. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weeeee! Let's have a revert war! Now Ambi's gone and reverted what you did back to the last of Tony's. Sigh. Yet another ridiculously broken process on WP. --Durin 20:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Several questions:

• Is asking others to not be lazy instruction creep? There is no reason why updating the tallies should not be recommended (not required, which would then be a case of instruction creep).
• Bureaucrats already use the numerical consensus method, after all the improper votes are discounted. But if you don't believe me, I'll ask a bureaucrat to go over this guide. Which brings me to the point: this is a guide for users what to expect, is not policy, it is current practice. It is not to be binding on bureaucrats, but something to tell nominees what to expect once they throw themselves into RfA. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I had a conversation with <unnamed experienced user> who agreed with Tony's changes stating in essence that the bureaucrats were wrong and Tony was right. So, even if we were to ask bureaucrats (in fact, bureaucrats have already reviewed this document and made changes to it), it wouldn't matter; we're still wrong. If this document ever went 'live' it would suffer the same sort of revert/undo stuff it's facing now, only at least an order of magnitude worse. I'm thinking now the best thing is to userfy it. At least then it has half a prayer of moving forward. Right now, it's stuck in the mud. It would have a heck of a lot less impact if it's userfied sadly. But, things at WP are so broken now that even if we put up Wikipedia:Guide to deletion today it would suffer the same fate this document is suffering. --Durin 21:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not just rename this Wikipedia:Durin and others' guide to requests for adminship? Then redirect this page somewhere else. On the new page, set up an area for people to sign their names that want to be apart of the "others" in the title. A kind of "Endorsed by:" type thing. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• It isn't my guide. What started out as a great community effort working forward towards content and format that we could all be proud of is now devolving into a revert war. I was hoping that we could achieve a guide that would slowly evolve over time, as the environment and standards in RfA changed. But, that's not being allowed. If it's userfied, or endorsed, then it becomes something that can not evolve. If it's left here, it'll be the subject of hopeless revert wars. Someone recently said to me that there are bad neighborhoods in Wikipedia. They also voiced the opinion that RfA was one of them. I think they're right. --Durin 21:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know it's not "your guide", and I wasn't seriously suggesting that that is what we should do. I understand the issues you raise and was merely trying to lighten the mood a little. I see you have userfied it, and I look forward to seeing a true "guide" develop there. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yet, Durin, it is your guide. This is requests for adminship according to Durin and friends. It is a restatement of your personal guidelines - which are very far from having community consensus - in such a way as to try to make them official. As a userfied page, this may be helpful, but it really is not as something masquerading as being official. Just because people disagree with you does not mean the system is broken. Ambi 22:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If you look at the editing history, which includes bureaucrats, and quite a number of other people, you will see that it most definitely isn't my guide or that of my "friends". For example, LV and I are not friends. For confirmation of that, look at my comments on his RfA. I think we respect each other, but friends we are not. Where the system is broken is when people such as yourself and Tony come to the guide, having not edited it before, and make radical, fundamental changes that amount to gutting the guide without talking about it on this talk page. I expect this behavior to escalate if this guide were connected to RfA. There is no attempt at making something "official" here. It is an attempt to show what the current environment at RfA is like. Too many RfAs are being brought that end up being withdrawn. In the month from October 11 to November 10, there were 21 of 79 RfAs withdrawn. In the 194 RfAs preceeding that, 22 with withdrawn. That's increasing from an 11% to a 27% withdrawal rate, or a stunning 245% increase. This guide is, in part, an attempt to reverse that trend. There isn't any attempt at consensus in this guide per se; it's an attempt to outline the current environment and answer some of the more common questions and contentious issues. --Durin 23:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
        • And it has become that toxic because of people like you setting insanely high and unnecessary standards. One shouldn't need a manual to request adminship. Ambi 23:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Ambi, nowhere is this guide trying to be official, and you cannot argue that what is written here isn't actually happening on RfA. I've talked to a bureaucrat on IRC, who said that the consensus section you're contending about is fairly accurate, and that there is no problem with this guide as long as it is clear that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you see someone trying to use this as policy, then that user is misusing this page; this is an attempt to tell users who are not RfA regulars what they should expect in case of an eventual nomination. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Ambi, you and Tony Sidaway (and perhaps others) have maintained that I have insanely high standards. The reality is the opposite. Since August, I have been actively working to decrease the ridiculously high standards people have. You are not the first person to assume I am creating high barriers to adminship. Look at the standards I placed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards for yourself, and also look at User:Durin/Admin_voting_measures. Tony tried to make a claim in my RfC that the standards I have would preclude 99 of 100 candidates passing. This is flatly false. Further, my votes on RfAs have been hardly out of line with community consensus, as 84% of the RfAs that I have voted oppose or support on went the way I voted. Personally, I am rather tired of defending myself on this point. It doesn't seem to matter whether a person has no standards, low standards, medium standards or high standards; they are criticized by the likes of you regardless. --Durin 23:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
          • As to the need of a manual for RfA; I agree with you. But, the reality of the current situation is that there is a broad range of aspects affecting RfA. By ignoring them and saying they don't matter doesn't make the problem go away. I would love to see RfA be far simplified. I really would. But, it's not going to be any time soon. In fact, it's going to get a hell of a lot worse. I've done a linear progression that shows there being more than 200 nominations per week within two years. The system as it is now will fall apart under the strain. Nobody will have sufficient time to review candidate's contributions to Wikipedia. Standards will collapse. Until then, we are doing a very large disservice to would-be nominees whom we feed to the lions of RfA. --Durin 23:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a broad range of factors affecting RfA, indeed. However, the removals do not ignore the problem, as with them, it clearly does serve as a useful warning about how nasty the process can get. Instead, it removes a couple of sections which are a clear attempt from a small group of contributors to cast their view as standard practice. They are not "what you should expect on RfA"; they're "what you should expect on RfA from Durin and Titoxd". They introduce heavily controversial criteria that just happen to fairly closely match Durin's own criteria and claim that this is standard practice. This is why they have been removed, and will continue to be so. Ambi 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, how are points already given the A-OK by Bureaucrats as "descriptive, not prescriptive" controversial and not standard practice? A Bureaucrat will not go by raw numbers, but it is generally acknowledged that they will not unilaterally go against any nomination that's above 80% support. For the n^th time, this guide is not policy. Also, some of the sections being taken out are just suggestions, that aren't enforceable, but still should be made known to those who are just starting to frequent the RfA process. It is not my view, it was already completed way before I got here. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I know this claims it isn't policy, but by placing at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and not User:Durin/Guide to requests for adminship, it is implicitly claiming some sort of community consensus and authority. It is then encouraging the use of the author's controversial criteria (by "suggesting it" for use by others) in this semi-official context. This is the RfA process according to Durin and friends; when it is placed at this title, having a small disclaimer saying it is "not policy" is just not good enough. Ambi 03:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

'Durin and Friends' seems a lot closer to a cosensus than just "Ambi and Tony". Like it or not, the stuff on this guide is stuff that does happen. Durin does not advocate it, but he does a lot of stats work and can back his numbers up (for instance, he has a account-age vs success rate graph that validates the 3 month rule, ) I do agree however that the "sample space" is too small to be called a real cosensus. Therefore, I think we should set an survey on rfc. I have started a section below where we can launch a survey Borisblue 04:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ambi, saying "This is why they have been removed, and will continue to be so" strikes me as a full-on intention to conduct a revert war, or in the very least insist on your opinion being forced through regardless of what other people say here. I recommend you go through the edit history of this document. There's been no attempt on my part to control the outcome of this document. Also, the things indicated as criteria people use really are used in RfA. To remove them is to ignore reality. For some of the criteria, I have statistics to back it up. The reality is that people with less than 2,000 edits do not far as well (by a long shot) as people over 2,000 edits. You can complain about that measure all you like, I really don't care. It doesn't change that reality. I've been actively working to make that measure less significant, but it is reality. No amount of insisting it be deleted can change that. --Durin 13:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone else needs to take point

Due to legal threats, unremitting personal attacks against me, and demands in an RfC by User:Kelly Martin that I either acquiesce or leave Wikipedia, I am leaving Wikipedia. The WP:GRFA has been a good community effort to positively improve the RfA process. I hope that somebody else will step forward and move this project forward with inclusion in the RfA process in appropriate places.

I hope that someday people will take the incivility in the RfA/RfB process seriously. People are routinely attacking the messenger rather than the message. I recently attempted to advise several people of their incivil attacks, but was at every opportunity roundly criticized for it. In the worst case, I've been accused of libel. What a travesty this process has become. --Durin 15:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFC survey

According to Wikipedia:Survey guidelines we start by forming cosensus on the following topics. This will be my first survey, so I would appreciate help from more experienced Wikipedians:

# Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. You will need to resolve the following issues:

1. • What questions should be asked?
   • What will the possible answers be?
   • Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?
   • When is the deadline?
   • How will the survey be totalled?
   • Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey.

Borisblue 04:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Erm, you're kidding, right? This sounds like something banned user Iasson would have thought up. Let us just discuss the issues at hand. Ambi 04:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't know much about RFCs frankly. I'm just following what it says on the page. Borisblue 04:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Let's not have a survey. It's already pretty obvious that there's a wide divergence of opinion. Some want this document to go down to giving numerical values, and seem to be quite happy with the document's extremely negative characterization of the RFA process. Others would prefer it to be redirected directly to WP:RFA. I'm in the latter camp and I think I'm prepared to compromise if we can find a way of having a document that doesn't promote edit counting and numerical vote counting, and doesn't violate "Don't tell people not to stick beans up their nose" by cementing as a fact the opinion that RFA is an acrimonious process. But the way to achieve this, this being a wiki, is by discussion and editing. Surveys only polarize, they cannot create consensus where none exists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Copy-paste dumping from my talk page so others can butt in too:

Fine by me. Let's go through them.

" less than three months of activity" → "limited activity":

• I don't object too much on this one, but the fact is that three months is seen by some as the bare minimum. However, I wouldn't make a fuss if it stayed off the page. --User:Titoxd
  • There's no need to set a definite standard. Some do; some don't. Limited activity gets the point across just fine. Ambi 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, look at this graph: I believe it shows that for less than 3 months, promotion to adminship is very rare. Borisblue 04:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think this new fetish with statistics is part of the problem. Some people may be experienced after two months. Some may be inexperienced after six. Can't we just stick with "limited"? It makes the point. Ambi 04:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

General advice section

• I don't see why any of these should be deleted: it lists several criteria that should be considered, and it states that all of them should be taken into account. In a way, I think it helps to end that dreaded editcountitis.

Recommended behavior: I don't see why any of these points is objectable, but I'd like to hear your opinion on this section. --User:Titoxd

• • The page already states that people have different personal standards and links to a page where many of them can be found. This, however, sets them up in a such a manner that they appear as requirements - while I and many others hold some aspects of these, in this form it appears as if most or all of these are vitally necessary to be an admin. This is something that Durin holds, but it is not something that is widspread. In any case, it is just unnecessary. The link is there and the point is already made without providing the implicit endorsement of Durin's personal views. Ambi 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps clarifying that users may look at some of these criteria? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It's still not good enough. It's like the tiny "not policy" disclaimer to get around the obvious - that it is intended to guide people's behaviour. We already link to the personal standards page, and I really don't see the need to go any further. Ambi 04:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit RfAs properly:

• the first two points and the final one are recommendations that should not be deleted in my opinion. The rest... well, recommending against Extreme Lesbian Support seems too instruction creepish. --User:Titoxd
  • I'm less concerned about this one; some of the advice is quite decent, and recommending against "extreme lesbian support" votes could be the one useful thing that might come out of this - I find it annoying as hell, not to mention offensive. Ambi 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• The dreaded numbers:
  • I talked over with a bureuacrat on IRC (Rdsmith4) about these, and he explained that while bureaucrats are free to determine their own definition of consensus, these numbers are pretty accurate. Perhaps we might want the opinion of more bureaucrats on this section. --User:Titoxd
    • Why is this necessary? Ambi 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Some editors think that the bar might be higher than that, and the information does not hurt. No bureaucrat should ever consider this page binding on them. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course the information hurts! It tells people that the numbers mean something. They don't mean anything, and putting them there is misleading and will tend to constrain the decision-making process. This entire document is a classic example of instruction creep. The one thing that people looking forfnumbers should know is that if they are asking about numbers they are asking the wrong question. If this document doesn't say that clearly, but instead gives some numbers, they go away with the false impression that their question can be answered by numbers and that those particular numbers are the answer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that a survey is going to help. As Ambi has made clear, discussion on this is pointless as he will insist on reverting to a version of this guide that deletes the things he does not like. As has been previously stated, this guide is intended to be descriptive. Like it or not, RfA is currently a very hostile process at times. To not make that clear is to set up would-be potentially contentious nominees for trouble. Tony's outline two sides. I think the two sides are more like having the guide outline how RfA is vs. outlining how we want it to be. I'm strongly in favor of the former. Tony and Ambi (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth) appear to be strongly in favor of the latter. There really isn't any middle ground to compromise on this. If the guide tries to be both, it will fail at both. <tongue in cheek>Maybe we could have "Guide to how RfA is" and another guide, "Guide to how RfA should be"</tongue in cheek>. Personally, my hope was that this guide would not be written in stone and would continue to evolve over time as the RfA process continued to evolve. The standards page connected to WP:RFA is static and has standards on it that are ancient. Many of the people with listed standards on it have not contributed to WP:RFA in a very long time. Would-be nominees reading that standards page are being misled. I think editors only add to that page, not remove from it because they are removing other people's standards in so doing. So we are left with ancient standards that poorly serve the community. This guide was, in part, an attempt to provide something better than that standards page.

Ambi, you keep insisting despite my arguments otherwise that I have some extreme level of admin criteria. I've told you of your error. You may certainly continue to maintain the falsehood, but it undermines your statements.

As for statistics "fetish", these stats are useful for helping to illuminate what the current situation is. When they make clear a strong trend regarding a given point, we are not well served by ignoring it and calling it a fetish. The reality is that over the last 238 RfAs that went full term (not withdrawn; completed 7 days), 57% of RfAs for editors with <2000 edits were successful (that's improved from 48% over the last two months thankfully). For RfAs with >2000 and <3000, it's 85% (which is unchanged). That's a massive difference. To ignore that and just say "limited" edits does not show reality. "Limited" is subject to interpretation from person to person. A user with six months and 600 edits might think a self-nom would be a good idea. But, they would probably get hammered. Maybe they thought "Limited" meant less than 500 edits.

Tony, you keep stating that the numbers don't mean anything. That's fine that you have that opinion. The reality, again, is otherwise. You do not like the meaning of consensus in this context; you deleted it right out of the document. The reality is as it was described and reviewed by bureaucrats; the people who make these decisions. You are overriding what the bureaucrats have indicated is reality in favor of what you think reality should be. Once again, "What RfA is" vs. "What RfA should be". It's far easier to describe something that is; it's considerably less subjective. Describing how things should be is extremely subjective. It is unlikely that we'll agree on that. As such, attempts to make this guide into "what RfA should be" will fail; the guide will be useless since it will be under constant revert disputes. Making this a guide to what RfA is is, apparently, unacceptable to Tony and Ambi and they are willing to back up their opinions by insisting on reverting it (well, at least Ambi is) to the version they think it should be.

We are at an impasse. --Durin 14:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

And no one is claiming that these are community standards. They are simply a reflection of current practice at RfA. Saying otherwise is simply lying. Look at the stats. When they change, the guide will change. I don't get what Tony's and Ambi's qualm is about having something that shows what happens at RfA. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think (feel free to correct me Tony/Ambi) their concern is that by indicating the current environment at RfA, we are causing that environment to be the accepted norm; thus, whatever we say here in essence becomes policy though the guide says its not policy. I think that's a point with some merit. But, I don't think it's sufficient reason to undermine this guide and leave would-be nominees with next to nothing on which to guide themselves into and through the RfA process. Right now, it's like walking through a door into a darkened chamber. You've little or no idea what dangers lay ahead and you're only equipped with an aged, yellowed document speaking to standards which may or may not be realistic anymore. --Durin 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• By the way; if this guide were put into a userspace, the likelihood that it would be connected to the RfA process is next to nil. This defeats the purpose for which the guide was created in the first place. --Durin 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• You keep restating this red herring: that this is some all-or-nothing argument and that if the controversial sections were removed, the guide would no longer warn people of some of the pitfalls of an RfA nomination. Rather, the changes still leave potential nominees with a good idea of what to expect - and importantly, do so without violating WP:BEANS. Ambi 15:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• The fact that you're willing to revert war to push your point through isn't a red herring. --Durin 15:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I also just noticed this comment on IRC apparently from you Ambi (assuming "ambi2" is you): "well, we should be able to keep up with the admin need if we hang User:Durin from the nearest flagpole". Very diplomatic of you. Also exceedingly incorrect as I have been actively working to lower standards, not raise them. I am pleased that prior to my producing charts on nominees with <2000 edits, the promotion rate was 48%. Now, it's 57% after I've produced more than 30 of these charts. If you'd read my actual standards, you would see the following quotes from that page

• "strict objective criteria developed by some for determining appropriateness for adminship are often misguided."
• "The qualities that make a person a good admin existed before they ever came to Wikipedia."
• "[A nominee] could know all of [policy and standards] information without contributing a single edit to Wikipedia.
• "Each nominee deserves to be subjectively judged on their merits, not on an arbitrary quotient achieved through mathematical machinations."

• Now please, get off the "Durin has insane voting standards" horse, ok? --Durin 16:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Durin, in the history of Wikipedia, there have been three or four people desysopped. 99.5% of admins have conducted themselves basically without issue, using their mop and broom effectively. Instead of asking "do they basically know what they're doing?" and "are they likely to abuse their powers?", your criteria force people to meet nine unhelpful guidelines that go far beyond their ability to actually carry out their duties. What your version of this page serves to do is attempt to reinforce those criteria as standard practice. I'm well aware that there are many divergent views on standards, and my version of this page makes that clear; while removing the implicit endorsement of your particular standards. Ambi 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• It isn't MY version of the page. I started the guide, but a large number of other people have contributed to it. The "nine unhelpful guidelines" are reality. I'm sorry you find that reality unacceptable, but it doesn't change reality. This guide is intended to be a reflection of what RfA is at this point in time. It's not written in stone, and as my comments note above it is not an attempt to jam policy or standards down anyone's throat. These aren't my particular standards. Are you going to get off that horse? --Durin 17:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm all for showing the standards of the present time. I'm all for linking to the page which displays many of the divergent personal standards used so that people can get a vibe of what they should expect, as both versions of this page do. The nine unhelpful guidelines are not reality. They are reality according to Durin and a couple of other authors of this page. Vote how you please, but please don't try to pretend your views are anything but controversial, let alone have consensus. Ambi 17:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I guess you'll just have to hang me from the nearest flag pole then Ambi. I never said the criteria were not controversial or had consensus. I said they are reality; they are what people use. That's not that all the criteria are used by all people, but those criteria are most definitely used. The standards used at the present time are not set by you. They are done by the people who choose to vote and use whatever standards they feel like using. So, go on reverting this guide back to whatever version you think is best and ignore what other work everyone else has done here. I've a size 15 1/2" neck; you might find that figure useful in making your noose for me. --Durin 17:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not denying that there is no consensus about standards for RfAs. Views on the subject are quite clearly very divergent. This is why my version of this page does not endorse any particular view, instead pointing people in the direction of the personal standards page. Your version, however, claims that your personal views are "reality", when there is clearly no such consensus (or indeed any consensus) on RfA. Ambi 17:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you even seen the statistics of Admin voting? It is the general consensus what was put in the guide. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus according to who? There has never been any consensus as to standards on RfA, which is why there are personal standards. This takes the personal standards of one group and seeks to make them the universal standard. Ambi 17:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Not consensus of what the standards should be, but rather consensus in what actually happens. The general consensus, based on the actual votes at RfA, is that it is hard to pass if you have below a certain number of edits or have been here shorter than a certain period of time. Saying otherwise just shows that you may not have been paying attention to RfA close enough. We haven't established any standards, we are telling people what actually happens at RfA. I give up. Just keep beating away. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• (re-indenting)Sigh. I give up. Ambi, you're just flat out not listening to what's being said. I don't know how many times I've said these aren't my standards yet you still insist they are. THESE ARE NOT MY STANDARDS and THIS ISN'T MY PAGE. Good grief. How many times and how large do I have to say it before the message gets across? In fact, it's probably more accurate to say it's your page now; you insist on reverting it to your version and to heck with what anyone else thinks. You're right and we're wrong and that's the only way it can be. Nice. Very nice. Got that noose ready yet? --Durin 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh, talk about misrepresenting my views. I'm not saying my views are right, and though I disagree with them, I'm not saying that yours are wrong. What I object to is your representing your views on the topic as the standard, when there is clearly no consensus for such a conclusion. And while you say "it's not your page", you wrote it and the endorsed standards on this page nearly exactly matched your own on your personal page. In the circumstances, your denial isn't awfully convincing. Ambi 18:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• And your edit warring and suggesting I should be strung from a flagpole is very convincing. I defer to your obviously superior judgement. --Durin 18:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that my frivolous 3am remark on IRC is going to be the "slander" of our dealings. Are you going to overreact and bring this up again for the next week, or month? Ambi 18:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's your skeletons, not mine. If you want people to treat with you civilly, then you should treat them civilly. Suggesting I be strung up from a flag pole, even said in (unmarked) frivolity, is hardly conducive to to working together. I would have expected a user with your experience to take a less antagonistic approach, but I guess not. Also, it isn't me that is over-reacting; you're the one getting into a revert war over this article, not me. Might I recommend you cool off a bit and learn to work towards compromise on this article rather than rashly attempting to override what more than a dozen other users had put together? You didn't make any attempt at trying to work with the people on the article. You insist you're attempting to push my POV out. Reality; more than a dozen other users have contributed to this article before you and Tony came along. Now, you've hijacked the article and are refusing to allow any changes that aren't in line with your POV. That's POV pushing; and let's remember it's you doing the reverting, not me. I haven't touched the article for two weeks. --Durin 23:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've been more than happy to compromise on this article, as I did above with Borisblue. Both of us gave some ground there, and we'd at least started to move to some sort of agreement before you came back with your "my way or the highway" attitude. You continually insist that any changes are impossible and that there is some mythical consensus support for your version which you've never actually shown any evidence for. And please don't cast me as the only one reverting here; it takes two to tango. Ambi 15:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• You were the one maintaining the fiction that there were only two or three of my friends working on the article, not me. I'm sorry if those words aren't palatable to you, but it is what you said. The reality is there were 15 contributors, including two bureaucrats, to the article before you stepped in and started wiping out large sections and engaging in revert waring. I'm calling your actions for what they are. If you're embarrassed about them, I suggest you don't do similar in the future, but instead start by working towards compromise. I'm not in any way suggesting my way is the only way. Hell, the vast majority of the content of the article isn't even stuff I contributed. What I am saying is that we don't work towards compromise by having someone show up, gut an article, revert any attempts made by others you disagree with, and not engage in discussion. Again, these were your actions. If you don't like them, change them in the future. Now, if you're willing to compromise, then you will find me a person willing to compromise as well. --Durin 15:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is indeed primarily the work of a very small minority of those that use RfA, and the original version sought to cast the views of that minority as the "standard" to be followed by new users, which was just not on. I'm not embarrassed about "my actions" in the slightest; you do not have the right to force your minority opinions on the rest of the community by controlling what goes into the manual. And as usual, you throw mud and slander my reputation (i.e. accusing me of gutting the article and not trying to compromise, as I patently have if you'd actually read the talk page before launching into these long screeds of attacks on me), instead of being prepared to give the slightest ground and actually coming to a compromise. I gave some ground in talking with Borisblue above, and I'm perfectly prepared to work out a version that's acceptable to both of us - but believe it or not, that actually requires a willingness to compromise (which means actually giving ground) on your part. Ambi 15:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Too funny; "controlling what goes into the manual" yet I haven't edited it in more than two weeks. What rubbish! Tell you what, as a first step to compromise you and I both agree to not get into a revert war on the document. Agreed? I agree; easy enough for me as I haven't ever revert warred, much less on this article. --Durin 17:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• You're quite clearly trying to control what goes into the manual, as evidenced by your comments on this page, which have been entirely focused on you getting your way without the slightest compromise. Borisblue was willing to do so, but so far you're still screaming righteous rage instead of trying to do something useful. Ambi 17:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Place this guide for deletion

Any objections to placing this guide for WP:MD? It's obvious that with people like Ambi who refuse to listen and the constant revert warring that is now happening, this guide will never see the light of day. I think it would, at this point, be better to delete this guide and left RfA continue to devolve into a hopeless mess so that Ambi, Tony, and others of like mind can eventually be convinced that it is needed to show what RfA is now, and not what it's supposed to be. I think we're going to have to sacrifice a lot more editors at the altar before we can move forward. --Durin 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Bah. It would be much more of a hopeless mess, and would cost us quite a lot more editors, if this exercise in violating WP:BEANS were to be thrust into practice without any consensus to do so. Ambi 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's a mess now because you insist on edit warring to push your point of view into the article rather than actually engaging in any meaningful debate, as was the norm before you and Tony showed up to gut this article. --Durin 18:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Take it to MfD. It's useless. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, bah. I'm not trying to push my point of view into the article; I'm trying to push yours out. You, however, remain insistent that it must support your views and yours only, or it must die. And there was no debate before we came along: there was two or three people who shared a POV and tried to write an official "guide" to support that POV. Ambi 18:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should have written, "It's useless... to try and have a rational conversation with you." I hope you were refering to Durin and not me, because I have never tried to incorporate my POV or standards into the guide. And there was plenty of discussion before this came along. Durin didn't even write the base article this guide was founded on. And it isn't two or three, it is many, have you looked at the history? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, that's 15 people including 2 bureaucrats...not two or three people. The "two or three people" in this equation far more aptly describes yours and Tony's actions, not ours. --Durin 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• What people? This page has been you, LV, and Borisblue arguing against the changes, and me and Tony arguing for. That's hardly an overwhelming consensus in your favour, so quit the righteous tone. Ambi 06:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• My righteous tone? *laugh* that's rich! Let me remind you, again, that it's you that's been doing the revert waring. If you'd look at the edit history of the article, you'd see there are 15 people, including 2 bureaucrats, who have worked on the article. --Durin 13:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's very odd then that only the three people who share your view have come to defend your version of this draft; surely if those 15, including the two bureaucrats, were so keen on your version, they'd have appeared to defend it. And as I just said above, please don't try to suggest that I'm the only one reverting here; it takes two to tango. Perhaps you could try attempting a compromise for a change and drop the "my way or the highway" attitude. Ambi 15:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Pot? Kettle? Black? I'm not the one doing the reverting. As for compromise, hey I'm all for it. Perhaps I should take cue from you and revert back to the version that I think is right? --Durin 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've already made an effort to compromise, as with Borisblue above, but you've done nothing but scream righteous rage. You haven't even once shown the slightest desire to give the slightest ground at all. Ambi 15:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Quite the contrary my friend, quite the contrary. Please recall that I haven't edited the article in two weeks. Thank you, and try to have a nice day. --Durin 17:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Next time, read the comment then reply. I didn't say anything about reverts or editing the article. I said that you've shown absolutely no desire to give the slightest ground at all and have instead done nothing but scream righteous rage - all of which has happened right here. Ambi 17:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps if all of you dropped the "I'm right, you're completely wrong" attitude, we might get somewhere. Do what Borisblue suggested, put it on an RFC where everyone can give us their opinion on the matter. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)