The declining credibility of RFA

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:17 am

Kumioko wrote:Actually Jimbo was fired more or less for allegations of misuse of funds

Submitting expense reports for Russian "massage parlor" trips.

I shit you not

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:28 am

This thread has gone off the rails a bit, but the simple fact of it is that none of the three things mentioned above are mutually exclusive. AFAIK, all three are essentially true - Jimbo figured out he couldn't monetize the site for his own benefit, started to abuse his company credit card instead, did it too many times and got caught, and lo, behold! he then got religion and decideth to giveth essentially full control to the Foundation, reserving only a lifetime Board seat for himself. (Wikia was already almost four years old by this time, btw.)

The allegations regarding the Russian massage parlors (and there were also supposed to be some $600 wine bottles involved) popped up in March 2008, and the Board Restructuring announcement appeared a few weeks later, so at the time it definitely looked like the two things were related. They probably were, but of course the WMF always denied it.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:24 pm

So back to the subject of this thread. RFA has always been a bad process but has gotten worse over the years. In an effort to get this discussion back on course let me offer a couple ideas that IMO would improve it substantially. Some of these of course have their own problems too:
- Adminship should not be harder to take away than it is too get. If the community can be trusted to grant access to the tools they can take them away.
- The community does not have the authority to remove the tools, only arbcom can do that. The community does have the ability to indef ban an admin, which would essentially require someone to desysop them. What sense does that make.
- Admins should not be a big deal, it should be realitively easy to get and relatively easy to take away if someone screws up. There really isn't anything that can't be undone if it is in error, so there is little reason to restrict it beyond ensuring the user has adequate experience on the project. It should be more about their ability to use the tools than a popularity contest
- The RFA process needs to be easier to do but IMO if the person applying for RFA doesn't have the technical knowledge to fill it out and transclude it properly, that should be a sign that they need to work on their skills first before applying.
- If someone doesn't edit they do not need access to the tools. Right now the threshhold is set pretty high, no edits or log actions in a year. But if someone only stops by and fixes a typo once a month, why do they need access to the tools anyway?

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:01 pm

Kumioko wrote: If someone doesn't edit they do not need access to the tools. Right now the threshhold is set pretty high, no edits or log actions in a year. But if someone only stops by and fixes a typo once a month, why do they need access to the tools anyway?

In my opinion, a large admin corps is like the National Guard and Army Reserve. You might not need to have them on active duty everyday, but they have the training and tools needed to respond instantly. Suppose a coordinated group starts a large-scale disruptive action which requires a lot of manual correction. The less-than-active administrators could be asked to step in for an effective response. However, I agree with Kumioko that if an admin sincerely lost interest in the project, it would be best if he resigns his tools.

If I had to develop an alternative to the present RFA, I would have three components: 1) an online quiz to show familiarity with the tools and policy, 2) a requirement that at least 20 editors endorse the application and 3) a public comment period where if at least 25 people "vote" in opposition, the RFA would fail. The online quiz would replace the current Q&A gauntlet.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:11 pm

eagle wrote:
Kumioko wrote: If someone doesn't edit they do not need access to the tools. Right now the threshhold is set pretty high, no edits or log actions in a year. But if someone only stops by and fixes a typo once a month, why do they need access to the tools anyway?
In my opinion, a large admin corps is like the National Guard and Army Reserve. You might not need to have them on active duty everyday, but they have the training and tools needed to respond instantly. Suppose a coordinated group starts a large-scale disruptive action which requires a lot of manual correction. The less-than-active administrators could be asked to step in for an effective response. However, I agree with Kumioko that if an admin sincerely lost interest in the project, it would be best if he resigns his tools.

If I had to develop an alternative to the present RFA, I would have three components: 1) an online quiz to show familiarity with the tools and policy, 2) a requirement that at least 20 editors endorse the application and 3) a public comment period where if at least 25 people "vote" in opposition, the RFA would fail. The online quiz would replace the current Q&A gauntlet.

:I actually agree that no one should be desysopping everyone because they haven't edited in a few weeks, but if they have only done a couple edits in a year, that shouldn't qualify them as active enough to have the admin tools. If they return to editing by all mans give the tools back.

:I don't know about an online quiz, but it seems like some standard criteria could be developed to ensure they have the requisite knowledge needed. A certain number of edits in various venues, some experience with templates would be good, some experience with AFD and the for deletion venues, maybe some vandalism work etc. With that said, in many cases admins specialize in certain areas, so if all they work on is anti vandalism, I wouldn't be opposed to giving them the tools to be able to do that if they have proven they know what they are talking about.

Scott5114 · Unread post by **Scott5114** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:33 pm

sparkzilla wrote:The essence of wiki software is conflict. The software attracts people who are willing to fight to display their knowledge and their sense of truth, so any community that sprigs from it is, by design, combative. However, the software allows malicious people a lot of power, by allowing then not just the right to write, but to edit; by allowing them to create rules for their own governance; and allowing them to create relationships inside the system that allow them to accumulate unfettered power. All of this can be avoided by creating the correct checks and balances in software, but there's no leadership so no-one is really interested in doing that.

I disagree. I think that a lot of this is due to Wikipedia's conscious decisions, and not anything to do with the wiki software itself. The Missouri Department of Transportation has a MediaWiki instance, the Engineering Policy Guide, that catalogs some of its practices and procedures. It seems to do the job just fine. I have also heard of several small businesses using a wiki to store collective wisdom and procedures so that it's written down how a situation is handled, so in the future past precedent is easily accessed and those in the situation don't have to reinvent the wheel and can learn from past mistakes.

The key difference between those situations and Wikipedia is that there is a management structure outside of the wiki that governs its users. If you act like an ass on the MoDOT wiki, presumably your supervisor will handle it the same as if you were an ass to someone in an office in Jefferson City—and they have a diff of your own words to use as evidence. A lot of Wikipedia's problems stem from the fact that is community was designed essentially as an anarchy, avoiding a traditional hierarchy of accountability. The void in leadership was filled by an ad-hoc group of power users, but there's really no way to hold someone accountable. Every author is equal, and there's no higher-up that can step in and say "This is how it will be". This is not something the software requires or encourages, it was the community that dropped the ball there. A wiki is just a tool for managing documents; what is put in it is up to the users.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:46 pm

Scott5114 wrote:
sparkzilla wrote:The essence of wiki software is conflict. The software attracts people who are willing to fight to display their knowledge and their sense of truth, so any community that sprigs from it is, by design, combative. However, the software allows malicious people a lot of power, by allowing then not just the right to write, but to edit; by allowing them to create rules for their own governance; and allowing them to create relationships inside the system that allow them to accumulate unfettered power. All of this can be avoided by creating the correct checks and balances in software, but there's no leadership so no-one is really interested in doing that.
I disagree. I think that a lot of this is due to Wikipedia's conscious decisions, and not anything to do with the wiki software itself. The Missouri Department of Transportation has a MediaWiki instance, the Engineering Policy Guide, that catalogs some of its practices and procedures. It seems to do the job just fine. I have also heard of several small businesses using a wiki to store collective wisdom and procedures so that it's written down how a situation is handled, so in the future past precedent is easily accessed and those in the situation don't have to reinvent the wheel and can learn from past mistakes.

The key difference between those situations and Wikipedia is that there is a management structure outside of the wiki that governs its users. If you act like an ass on the MoDOT wiki, presumably your supervisor will handle it the same as if you were an ass to someone in an office in Jefferson City—and they have a diff of your own words to use as evidence. A lot of Wikipedia's problems stem from the fact that is community was designed essentially as an anarchy, avoiding a traditional hierarchy of accountability. The void in leadership was filled by an ad-hoc group of power users, but there's really no way to hold someone accountable. Every author is equal, and there's no higher-up that can step in and say "This is how it will be". This is not something the software requires or encourages, it was the community that dropped the ball there. A wiki is just a tool for managing documents; what is put in it is up to the users.

I beg to differ.
The problem is that those people are incompetent and weak willed.
HTH

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:17 pm

Scott5114 wrote:I disagree. I think that a lot of this is due to Wikipedia's conscious decisions, and not anything to do with the wiki software itself. The Missouri Department of Transportation has a MediaWiki instance, the Engineering Policy Guide, that catalogs some of its practices and procedures. It seems to do the job just fine. I have also heard of several small businesses using a wiki to store collective wisdom and procedures so that it's written down how a situation is handled, so in the future past precedent is easily accessed and those in the situation don't have to reinvent the wheel and can learn from past mistakes.

The key difference between those situations and Wikipedia is that there is a management structure outside of the wiki that governs its users. If you act like an ass on the MoDOT wiki, presumably your supervisor will handle it the same as if you were an ass to someone in an office in Jefferson City—and they have a diff of your own words to use as evidence. A lot of Wikipedia's problems stem from the fact that is community was designed essentially as an anarchy, avoiding a traditional hierarchy of accountability. The void in leadership was filled by an ad-hoc group of power users, but there's really no way to hold someone accountable. Every author is equal, and there's no higher-up that can step in and say "This is how it will be". This is not something the software requires or encourages, it was the community that dropped the ball there. A wiki is just a tool for managing documents; what is put in it is up to the users.

Can anyone in the world edit these wikis? Can people edit them anonymously?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:56 pm

Poetlister wrote:Can anyone in the world edit these wikis? Can people edit them anonymously?

No, of course not, and that is not their purpose. What he's trying to say is that wiki software is useful, in limited circumstances and under some controls. Throwing one wide open to the public Internet simply invites abuses and madness. The fault is not even Wikipedia itself or the general concept, it is in the execution. And in the weak, arrogant, dishonest people who "pretend to run it".

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:34 am

Poetlister wrote:Can anyone in the world edit these wikis? Can people edit them anonymously?

Very few wikis allow public anonymous editing. Those that do, usually don't for long, because once the spambots find them they get turned into spam soup in a matter of minutes.

Peryglus · Unread post by **Peryglus** » Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:15 pm

Did anybody notice there's a new RfA today, the first one since the beginning of this month. Looks like it's going to crash and burn, unfortunately.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:34 am

Yeah.

You can see why, though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =640212986

I am particularly unimpressed with elf-nomination... BMK

What happened to the spirit of Christmas?
I'd have thought this was the perfect time of year for an elf-nomination.

Bah, humbug.

spartaz · Unread post by **spartaz** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:19 pm

Jim wrote: Bah, humbug.

Hey! That's my signature!

spartaz · Unread post by **spartaz** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:20 pm

Peryglus wrote:Did anybody notice there's a new RfA today, the first one since the beginning of this month. Looks like it's going to crash and burn, unfortunately.

This wasn't really a poster child of someone who should of passed being unfairly opposed...

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:23 pm

spartaz wrote:
Jim wrote: Bah, humbug.
Hey! That's my signature!

Do you know, when I posted that, I thought exactly that, and I wondered, in passing, if it would summon you, like a Bat Signal.
I'm smiling now.

spartaz wrote:This wasn't really a poster child of someone who should of/have/'ve passed being unfairly opposed...

Well, quite...

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 3

Loved how one user posted to call the oppose votes "ludicrous" and "wholly ridiculous"(sic), while carefully and snivellingly saying "except User X" who he presumably wishes to continue to brown-nose.

What he failed to comment on was the "quality" of the "support" votes:

1. ...at first glance...
2 ...First glance...
3 ...at first glance...
sensing a theme here, guys, copy/paste is alive and well, shame you chose a weakness in the vote to copypasta...

4 ...Fine enough... (this guy then badgered loads of opposers, after this in depth analysis.)
5 ...Strikes me as the type that just wants to become an admin for the "status" of it... (yes, this is a support vote)
6 ...moral support only, I'm afraid...
7 ... Wikipedia is a like living in a group house where the dishes are piled up on the sink and the laundry on the floor...
8 ... although I will stipulate redacting the comment was a mistake... I have long found Rcsprinter123 to be a trustworthy editor -- he was my adopter way back when, after all... (this was the guy who said the opposers were ludicrous)

and that's it, folks.

RFA at its finest.

Shoulda let the elf nominate.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:17 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Actually Jimbo was fired more or less for allegations of misuse of funds
Submitting expense reports for Russian "massage parlor" trips.

I shit you not

Lesson: always save your receipts, people!!!

RfB

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:21 am

Of-topic things moved here.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:57 am

So let's get

In what way do you feel that RfA is less credible?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:13 pm

Zoloft wrote:In what way do you feel that RfA is less credible?

Mostly in that it elects for life, and removal of bad admins is tremendously difficult. That and the fact that it is often a popularity contest, with teen vandal patrollers flocking to reciprocally support each other. That last part seems to be slightly improved, of late, though.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:45 pm

Nice spelling there Zoloft

In all seriousness, I think the biggest issues with RfA are twofold:

Firstly, as Jim alluded to above, it is just too hard to remove a bad admin, and there is no community process for doing so; it's either ArbCom or bust. Now, ArbCom have recently acted in the best interests of the community with the admin-specific cases they've been given, but that's not always the case. I think there should be some kind of system where, if enough editors of good standing call out what they see as a pattern of deliberate misuse of the tools, or something similar, a case can be opened where you have private votes on whether you think this person should be retained as an admin or not, giving your reasoned opinion. This would restrict most of the harassment that some of the worst enablers would dish out, although of course, it isn't perfect.

I think the tendency for certain editors to make RfAs a toxic environment is the other big problem. I don't think it being a popularity contest is what we need to concern ourselves with as a primary issue; after all, almost any vaguely democratic system will have, to some degree, a dependence on popularity, and I don't think there's any way around that. Well, there is one way, but that requires every single admin candidate to be somebody that no one has ever heard of, which is obviously impossible. However, when you get support voters who go and nag genuine/good-faith oppose voters (or worse, neutral) persistently, or oppose voters who simply either appear out of nowhere, or bring along such horrific arguments that they just cause a row, then it puts people off both voting (particularly if they hold a less-popular viewpoint), or even standing for adminship altogether. That, and the ludicrously loaded/unhelpful questions candidates get asked, from time to time.

MoldyHay · Unread post by **MoldyHay** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:47 pm

Here's an interesting idea:

RfA should be replaced by a slashdot-style moderation system. Every so often, a random assortment of users in good standing get credits to make a few admin actions. Any admin actions in the log could be upvoted or down voted (without the name of the user who made the action), akin to metamoderation. Users whose actions get upvoted more than average would get admin credits more often, and users who get down voted more than average would get admin credits less often.

The biggest problem I can think of with this is how badly the WMF dev team would f it up if they tried to implement it.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:51 pm

Jim wrote:
Zoloft wrote:In what way do you feel that RfA is less cedible?
Mostly in that it elects for life, and removal of bad admins is tremendously difficult. That and the fact that it is often a popularity contest, with teen vandal patrollers flocking to reciprocally support each other. That last part seems to be slightly improved, of late, though.

And they don't actually crown you.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:44 pm

MoldyHay wrote:Here's an interesting idea:

RfA should be replaced by a slashdot-style moderation system. Every so often, a random assortment of users in good standing get credits to make a few admin actions. Any admin actions in the log could be upvoted or down voted (without the name of the user who made the action), akin to metamoderation. Users whose actions get upvoted more than average would get admin credits more often, and users who get down voted more than average would get admin credits less often.

The biggest problem I can think of with this is how badly the WMF dev team would f it up if they tried to implement it.

An interesting idea, but not one that would ever work. There are far too many people who are totally unsuitable to sorting any sort of power, who are both users in good standing and are users who are generally good.

JCM · Unread post by **JCM** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:05 pm

Jim wrote:
Zoloft wrote:In what way do you feel that RfA is less credible?
Mostly in that it elects for life, and removal of bad admins is tremendously difficult. That and the fact that it is often a popularity contest, with teen vandal patrollers flocking to reciprocally support each other. That last part seems to be slightly improved, of late, though.

I wonder whether implementing any sort of term limits would be workable. I could see, for instance, allowing RfA to make a person an administrator for some set period of time, say two or three years. At the end of the set period, that person would neither be an administrator any longer nor be eligible for adminship for at least a year, barring an extremely strong turnout (and I'm thinking in the range of 90%+) support in a continuation RfA, which would only reconfirm for another two years. However, after the predetermined period of nonadminship, the person would be eligible to run again under standard circumstances. Variations would of course be made for sitting arbitrators whose two years as an admin ends during the middle of their period as an arbitrator, where they would be allowed to remain an admin for the length of their arb term.

Peryglus · Unread post by **Peryglus** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:07 pm

All this stuff has already been discussed and rejected numerous times at various places on wiki, mostly WT:RfA. They've had hundreds of different ideas to fix the process. Nothing is likely to change.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:12 pm

JCM wrote:At the end of the set period, that person would neither be an administrator any longer nor be eligible for adminship for at least a year, barring an extremely strong turnout (and I'm thinking in the range of 90%+) support in a continuation RfA, which would only reconfirm for another two years. However, after the predetermined period of nonadminship, the person would be eligible to run again under standard circumstances. Variations would of course be made for sitting arbitrators whose two years as an admin ends during the middle of their period as an arbitrator, where they would be allowed to remain an admin for the length of their arb term.

See, this is the disease. It's not that complicated. Elect them for 2 years and have done with it. If they want to stand again, then lovely.
All these ifs buts and wherefores are what the Kudpungs of this world have wikilawyered over, with pretend "reform programs", in order to keep the status quo, since forever.

MoldyHay · Unread post by **MoldyHay** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:17 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:An interesting idea, but not one that would ever work. There are far too many people who are totally unsuitable to sorting any sort of power, who are both users in good standing and are users who are generally good.

Anyone who is totally unsuited to wield any sort of power is not generally good, nor is likely to be in good standing. The biggest problem with RfA, per consensus in this thread, is that once a user has the bit, they can do as much damage as they want for as long as they want, except in the rare case of an ArbCom desysop. The brilliance of the slashdot model was giving a very limited amount of power to each user, so even if the user decided to abuse it, they can't wreak any widespread havoc.

JCM · Unread post by **JCM** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:23 pm

Jim wrote:
JCM wrote:At the end of the set period, that person would neither be an administrator any longer nor be eligible for adminship for at least a year, barring an extremely strong turnout (and I'm thinking in the range of 90%+) support in a continuation RfA, which would only reconfirm for another two years. However, after the predetermined period of nonadminship, the person would be eligible to run again under standard circumstances. Variations would of course be made for sitting arbitrators whose two years as an admin ends during the middle of their period as an arbitrator, where they would be allowed to remain an admin for the length of their arb term.
See, this is the disease. It's not that complicated. Elect them for 2 years and have done with it. If they want to stand again, then lovely.
All these ifs buts and wherefores are what the Kudpungs of this world have wikilawyered over, with pretend "reform programs" in order to keep the status-quo since forever.

My only reason for allowing a few variations is the possibility, admittedly a small one, that at any given time there might not be enough admins to keep certain functions going. I know a lot of people aren't really high on Sandstein, for instance, but under some limited circumstances I could see his continuing as an admin able to do AE functions if there aren't others willing to take it on. And in some cases, like maybe bot operations, the system might fall apart if at least some active admins are involved.

But I really do think that for at least some people who want to be admins and seem to think that becoming an admin is one of, if not their primary, goals in editing wikipedia, telling them that they won't be an admin indefinitely, and that even for admins the primary function should be, as much as possible, developing the content, an enforced break from adminship, barring rare exceptions, would be probably in everybody's best interests. It should, if nothing else, reduce the burnout rate.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:31 pm

JCM wrote:
Jim wrote:My only reason for allowing a few variations...

Yeah, but I maintain that, in contemplating that, you fall into the "too hard - RFC too complex and bound to fail, so nothing can be done, ever" trap that has been so eloquently and elaborately set for you, over so many years.
K.I.S.S.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:23 pm

Sorry to be pernickety, but we're trying to discuss the declining credibility of RFA. Is it less credible that it was last year, or the year before? Has it ever been credible?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:45 am

Poetlister wrote:Sorry to be pernickety, but we're trying to discuss the declining credibility of RFA. Is it less credible that it was last year, or the year before? Has it ever been credible?

Well, to be fair, if that's what "we're trying to discuss", a quick glance through the 5 pages to date indicates to me that nobody, including the OP, has really done that at all.
Perhaps it wasn't a very good question? Perhaps it was too open-ended? Perhaps it's all been said many times already, so a new discussion was bound to wander?

Anyway, go on, you start:
"Is it less credible that it was last year, or the year before? Has it ever been credible?"

Or just define "credible" in context, if you think that will help.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:31 am

Due to habitual derailing, I had to split the original topic into three parts: this current remnant, the Sarek of Vulcan resysop RfA, and the rest of the posts in the trash for review.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:37 am

Zoloft wrote:Due to habitual derailing, I had to split the original topic into three parts: this current remnant, the Sarek of Vulcan resysop RfA, and the rest of the posts in the trash for review.

Aww. But it was a rare example of me getting along with someone. That doesn't happen very often.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:09 am

Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:Due to habitual derailing, I had to split the original topic into three parts: this current remnant, the Sarek of Vulcan resysop RfA, and the rest of the posts in the trash for review.
Aww. But it was a rare example of me getting along with someone. That doesn't happen very often.

I have pulled that part out of the trash, took out the mocking part, and placed it here: link viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6099[/link]

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:59 pm

Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:Due to habitual derailing, I had to split the original topic into three parts: this current remnant, the Sarek of Vulcan resysop RfA, and the rest of the posts in the trash for review.
Aww. But it was a rare example of me getting along with someone. That doesn't happen very often.

We can do that right here again.

Say that I'm the best.
I will agree with you.
You may groom me.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:59 pm

Jim wrote:Anyway, go on, you start:
"Is it less credible that it was last year, or the year before? Has it ever been credible?"

If it ever had any credibility, it was lost when SV derailed Ambuj Saxena's RfA because she had some minor grudge against him. It was running at over 40 yes and 0 no when she butted in; suddenly, a flood of her friends descended on it to vote no.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:47 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:Due to habitual derailing, I had to split the original topic into three parts: this current remnant, the Sarek of Vulcan resysop RfA, and the rest of the posts in the trash for review.
Aww. But it was a rare example of me getting along with someone. That doesn't happen very often.
We can do that right here again.

Say that I'm the best.
I will agree with you.
You may groom me.

You could be on the All Stars team.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:48 pm

Notvelty wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:Due to habitual derailing, I had to split the original topic into three parts: this current remnant, the Sarek of Vulcan resysop RfA, and the rest of the posts in the trash for review.
Aww. But it was a rare example of me getting along with someone. That doesn't happen very often.
We can do that right here again.

Say that I'm the best.
I will agree with you.
You may groom me.
You could be on the All Stars team.

Come on, now. Follow the steps.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:10 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Zoloft wrote:Due to habitual derailing, I had to split the original topic into three parts: this current remnant, the Sarek of Vulcan resysop RfA, and the rest of the posts in the trash for review.
Aww. But it was a rare example of me getting along with someone. That doesn't happen very often.
We can do that right here again.

Say that I'm the best.
I will agree with you.
You may groom me.
You could be on the All Stars team.
Come on, now. Follow the steps.

Will it be a Blast?

Newyorkbrad · Unread post by **Newyorkbrad** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:00 pm

Poetlister wrote:If it ever had any credibility, it was lost when SV derailed Ambuj Saxena's RfA because she had some minor grudge against him. It was running at over 40 yes and 0 no when she butted in; suddenly, a flood of her friends descended on it to vote no.

Actuallly, a much bigger problem was when someone derailed Jreferee's first RfA by opposing it with six different Runcorn sockpuppet accounts.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:46 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:
Poetlister wrote:If it ever had any credibility, it was lost when SV derailed Ambuj Saxena's RfA because she had some minor grudge against him. It was running at over 40 yes and 0 no when she butted in; suddenly, a flood of her friends descended on it to vote no.
Actuallly, a much bigger problem was when someone derailed Jreferee's first RfA by opposing it with six different Runcorn sockpuppet accounts.

RFA Ambuj.Saxena Ambuj had 87 supports and one oppose when SV opposed. The final count was 110-40-12.
RFA Jreferee 51-23-8.
Also:

Runcorn and sockpuppets banned
After an investigation involving several CheckUsers, myself included, it has been determined based on new, firmer technical evidence, as well as the editing patterns, including similar article interests, reverting to each other, and double voting, that Newport, Poetlister, R613vlu, Brownlee, Londoneye, and Taxwoman, all previous sockpuppetry suspects from 2005, are all the same user, and, further, that the operator of these accounts is also the operator of the newer accounts new accounts including Simul8, Osidge, Holdenhurst, and the admin account Runcorn. On the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee, Runcorn has been desysopped by a steward, and all of the accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Dmcdevit·t 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:50 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:
Poetlister wrote:If it ever had any credibility, it was lost when SV derailed Ambuj Saxena's RfA because she had some minor grudge against him. It was running at over 40 yes and 0 no when she butted in; suddenly, a flood of her friends descended on it to vote no.
Actuallly, a much bigger problem was when someone derailed Jreferee's first RfA by opposing it with six different Runcorn sockpuppet accounts.

It's a serious point, I suppose, though, that whenever someone sees a new name with a low edit count oppose an RFA there is always (and often voiced) suspicion of socking.
When it's not socking, but just a newish editor trying to join in and make a genuine vote, that must be very off-putting. I don't know how often that happens.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:07 pm

Jim wrote:
Newyorkbrad wrote:
Poetlister wrote:If it ever had any credibility, it was lost when SV derailed Ambuj Saxena's RfA because she had some minor grudge against him. It was running at over 40 yes and 0 no when she butted in; suddenly, a flood of her friends descended on it to vote no.
Actuallly, a much bigger problem was when someone derailed Jreferee's first RfA by opposing it with six different Runcorn sockpuppet accounts.

It's a serious point, I suppose, though, that whenever someone sees a new name with a low edit count oppose an RFA there is always (and often voiced) suspicion of socking.
When it's not socking, but just a newish editor trying to join in and make a genuine vote, that must be very off-putting. I don't know how often that happens.

I'm sure it does happen, but I don't think most new editors are likely to find anything about RfA within just a handful of edits, with the exception of them coming into direct contact with someone who is currently running for adminship. Anyone who isn't even autoconfirmed and yet posts a vote at an RfA is highly suspicious, given the nature of far too many editors (and ex-editors) at Wikipedia.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:44 am

Poetlister wrote:If it ever had any credibility, it was lost when SV derailed Ambuj Saxena's RfA because she had some minor grudge against him. It was running at over 40 yes and 0 no when she butted in; suddenly, a flood of her friends descended on it to vote no.

Which has happened repeatedly. And no one ever comments on it, or even cares.

NYB wrote:Actuallly, a much bigger problem was when someone derailed Jreferee's first RfA by opposing it with six different Runcorn sockpuppet accounts.

Which also happened, but not nearly as often as SlimVirgin or Jayjg or MONGO or KillerChihuahua managed to derail RFAs.
Say what you will about PL, Ira, your "friends" in Wikipedia are a lot worse.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:03 am

I think SV's vote on Ambuj.Saxena's RfA was perfectly acceptable (it may not have been correct or fair, but it was based on their own opinions from their own interactions), but I agree that the pile-on was just absurd. Far too many people saying "per SlimVirgin" - something they probably wouldn't get away with now.

For the Jreferee RfA, frankly I don't think the Runcorn sock accounts made any difference. All they did was pile on to an RfA that was almost certain to fail regardless of Runcorn's actions. As it happened more recently than Ambuj.Saxena's RfA, I'm inclined to say that it wasn't the moment when the RfA process began to fall to pieces.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:02 am

Lukeno94 wrote:I think SV's vote on Ambuj.Saxena's RfA was perfectly acceptable (it may not have been correct or fair, but it was based on their own opinions from their own interactions), but I agree that the pile-on was just absurd. Far too many people saying "per SlimVirgin" - something they probably wouldn't get away with now.

For the Jreferee RfA, frankly I don't think the Runcorn sock accounts made any difference. All they did was pile on to an RfA that was almost certain to fail regardless of Runcorn's actions. As it happened more recently than Ambuj.Saxena's RfA, I'm inclined to say that it wasn't the moment when the RfA process began to fall to pieces.

+ Per Luke.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:14 am

Well, for me it was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 (T-H-L) which made me loose faith in the process. Recall SV leading the "oppose" because Cla was "harassing" poor, innocent Mantanmoreland (T-C-L), (a.k.a. Gary Weiss (T-H-L)).

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:05 am

The Adversary wrote:Well, for me it was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 (T-H-L) which made me loose faith in the process. Recall SV leading the "oppose" because Cla was "harassing" poor, innocent Mantanmoreland (T-C-L), (a.k.a. Gary Weiss (T-H-L)).

On the brighter side, it was the first step in a long chain of events that lead to the freedom of a good man. Had Charles passed, he may still be stuck in the morass today.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:05 pm

The Adversary wrote:Well, for me it was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 (T-H-L) which made me loose faith in the process. Recall SV leading the "oppose" because Cla was "harassing" poor, innocent Mantanmoreland (T-C-L), (a.k.a. Gary Weiss (T-H-L)).

Well, again, it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose, whether it was correct or fair is another matter. I think it also came from a time when Wikipedia criticism sites were a lot more widely scorned than they are today.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:27 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Well, for me it was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 (T-H-L) which made me loose faith in the process. Recall SV leading the "oppose" because Cla was "harassing" poor, innocent Mantanmoreland (T-C-L), (a.k.a. Gary Weiss (T-H-L)).

Well, again, it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose, whether it was correct or fair is another matter. I think it also came from a time when Wikipedia criticism sites were a lot more widely scorned than they are today.

"Whether or not it was correct" goes right to the heart of the validity of the response. I could say that you should be arrested for being a mime and it would be just as good an argument.

Slim was lying. The very foundation of her oppose was false. Under such circumstances, "valid" is not a valid description.