Forum:New user RfAs

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > New user RfAs
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 February 2011 by Haloolah123.

Recently, a fairly new user requested adminship. In the first 9 minutes, he already got 6 opposes. I can really imagine this is not nice to see, and as i have seen in his reaction, he thought we didn't want him. I think that if someone requests adminship we shouldn't all mass oppose, but leave the requester a message on his talk he might want to reconsider his RfA(of course, not all jump on it and send him a message, that gives the same result). We should just make clear to him he is probably not gonna be supported as admin, and maybe should withdraw his nomination. What we do now is actually kinda chasing people away with so many opposes.

This is not a proposal, but a bit more like "discuss away" JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:00, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Said new users should probably read the RfA page...

The are no requirements for nomination, but here are a few general guidelines:
  • Candidates should be well-known, trusted, and helpful contributors to the wiki.
  • Candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki for a significant amount of time, at least several months.
  • Candidates should have a good number of quality contributions.
  • Candidates should have shown their ability to help other users.

I agree in principle with what you're saying, but there's a suggestion right there on the RfA page that says you need to be an established editor. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:07, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Instead of needlessly opposing these... All of these types of RfAs should just be closed offhand. Instead of opposing (something which only serves to make the nominee hate life), just leave a '''Request for closure''' and some admin will come and close it, and leave a message on the person's talk page. Ajraddatz 21:13, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

They will most likely have good intentions, however just as Andorin said, the guidelines are sitting there. However, I think that everyone is partly at fault - people generally judge a community by the actions of its most prominent members, and we should ease off on the opposition like Ajr said - 6 opposes in 9 minutes is unreasonable. Real Not Pure 21:18, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment RfAs are supposed to be a place, where someone on IRC said, where your organs are left out for the hungry dogs to eat, and people decide whether or not they are able to be an admin. A sea of opposes with reasons why the community doesn't trust them and things they can do to improve could be helpful if the person views it that way. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:15, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

No. If a new user (who obviously doesn't understand adminship or the RfA process) files an RfA, then gets 5-10 users opposing it per their lack of experience, it doesn't help anything. What needs to happen is that the candidate needs to be given a nice templated message explaining adminship and the RfA process, and have the request immediately closed. Besides, the only thing that they'll learn from the opposes is that there are a whole bunch of people on the wiki who apparently don't like them. I strongly doubt that many people will look at the flow of opposes and take from them the fact that they need to gain the community's trust first (And pretty much every new user's RfA will confirm this). Ajraddatz 23:08, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree in principle, but like Andorin said, it's quite clear on the RfA page what general requirements for an RfA are. Nominees for adminship are supposed to be able to read. I'd support beefing up the language, though. Make it very clear that a brand new user will have little to no chance. And for Zamorak's statement, while completely true, new users typically don't know that they're leaving out their organs for vultures to pick off. They're probably expecting something a bit easier. --LiquidTalk 23:37, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I also think that a major portion of the problem lies in the fact that many users who oppose a new user's RfA are more likely to use "savage" language that suggests some kind of animosity. How about we ask those who provide input into an RfA to point out flaws in a kinder way? --LiquidTalk 23:39, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
But that isn't needed - in almost all cases, there is only one "flaw" - the fact that they haven't been around for a year and made 10,000 edits. That can be very, very easily described in a brief, supportive message on their talk page, and does not require them to endure the RfA system unnecessarily. Ajraddatz 23:45, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - UCS and if an admin sees it just shut it. 3 admins voted on the last one, when any of them could of and probably should have shut it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 23:46, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Closing an RfA is a task for bureaucrats only. Administrators are only allowed to close RfA's if the nominee withdraws.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liquidhelium (talk) on 00:02, January 29, 2011 (UTC).
Then maybe we should modify the policy for this? Ajraddatz 00:10, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Use common sense, they will never pass, so just do what Sir Revan, [[RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Sssssddddd|Caleb]], Cook and Degen have done in the past. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:37, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - But keep in mind that Not yet has the same meaning as Oppose, it just isn't quite as aggressive. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:49, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Everyone has a right to nominate themselves regardless of how long they've been here without us forcing something like this on them. If they can't read the main RfA page, that's their problem, not ours. Andrew talk 00:22, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Do you really expect those people will read ALL of that HUGE text? If they don't, that's no reason to chase them away from the whole wiki ("you guys don't want me") with 6 opposes in the first 9 minutes. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:07, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Here you go again trying to force your opinion on me when I clearly don't agree with it. Do you honestly expect that someone getting a "Your RfA is probably going to fail so you should withdraw" message on their talk page is going to react any more positively? Sheesh. Common sense please? And finally, your excuse for not reading the RfA page is frankly pathetic. It's their for a reason, and "HUGE" is irrelevant (it actually isn't that much reading..). Many of our policies could be considered "HUGE text," but it's still important to read them, no? Laziness is not a justification for anything. Andrew talk 16:27, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I did consider snowballing it, but it was too soon. And although maybe we should have been less harsh with our speed, he should have read the RfA guide first. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:26, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Technically everyone has the right to try, and I don't want to take anymore rights away from anyone. As long as no one puts stuff like "lol u stupid n00b go hang urself" I don't really see the damage. Just redirect their attention to the RfA page and requirements and tell them they should wait and it's all good. Don't you think completely shutting them down from the start would hurt them too? Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 23:40, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? I never said that. I just said we should calm down on opposing new user RfAs. I never said anything about closing RfAs for new users. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:46, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
It would hurt them less than getting a wall of opposers. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:51, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Why not just add a rule? Make it so you need atleast 2 months of activity on the wiki before being nominated or consider nominating yourself in an RfA... RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 12:52, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

We could also just calm down on opposes. Then there is no need for more rules. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:00, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
But there is no way someone under 2 months would pass a rfa, so why not? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:02, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
With the addition of this rule, it prevents the necessity to even oppose on the RfA in the first place. The 2 month rule is pretty well laid out, since no other sysop was nominated and passed whilst having a wiki account for less than 2 months. This also removes the potential for these False/Near-impossible to occur since realistically, no one is going to make an account and wait 60 days just to make an disruptive RfA. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 20:57, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
2-3 months minimum has always been the unwritten rule, so if we're going to make an official requirement we might as well do that. Andrew talk 21:33, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Might as well just make it explicit that you should have a minimum of 2 months. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 00:38, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

2 months minimum for RfA[edit source]

Specify that you need to have a 2 month old account to be eligable for an RfA.

Neutral - As nomnom. 222 talk 00:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - No one is going to pass one under 4 months let alone 2. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 01:00, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Absolutely no reason for brand new users to be requesting adminship. This will eliminate the problem altogether. No walls of opposes, no templated "you should probably withdraw" talk page messages, and no hurt feelings. Andrew talk 03:12, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Sure. Per Soldier --Aburnett(Talk) 03:14, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Real Nub iPhone Edit

Support - It would help to prevent hurt feelings, but people who request adminship after 2 months still shouldn't get a wall of opposes. Changing the rules doesn't really help if we don't change ourselves. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:13, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. What do you want someone to do if they don't think someone should become an admin? Not oppose to avoid any "hurt feelings"??? Andrew talk 18:46, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
No, of course not. If someone who is still too new, or just doesn't have the slightest chance to become admin, someone should leave him a message saying he might want to reconsider it, and if they want to keep the RfA running, people should start to comment on it. It is just that we don't want to hurt their feelings, because that results in less people editing(while people who request adminship are most times editors that plan to stay for a longer time, so we lose valuable people) and less people editing is never good. A wiki needs editors, and with this kind of oppose walls, we are actually chasing people. So, if you think someone should not become an admin, and you have enough reason to believe (almost) nobody else thinks so either, you should leave the person a message first. And only after they had time to withdraw, start commenting. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:12, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Clearly we are wanting to set this 2-month minimum so only people that actually would have a chance of becoming an admin would be able to nominate themselves or be nominated. If someone has been on the wiki for at least 2-3 months, obviously they understand the wiki and the RfA/consensus process, so "hurt" feelings is a load of crap. And finally, let's take a look at the contract that every RfA nominee is required to sign. It specifically states I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realise that this nomination may fail. If someone can't bear getting opposed and they've been on the wiki for months already, they shouldn't accept the nomination in the first place. That's their problem, not ours. Andrew talk 20:08, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Soldier makes a good point, it is specifically specified on the contract. 222 talk 05:24, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Still that doesn't mean we should give them a huge wall of opposes. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:51, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Clearly everything I've said has gone in one ear and out the other. Either you've completely ignored my very detailed explanation of why your "wall of opposes" argument is utter nonsense, or you've somehow failed to comprehend it, because you're just repeating what I've already refuted, so I've reached the conclusion that you aren't worth the effort. In other words, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain anything else to you, because it'll only fall on deaf ears. Andrew talk 18:17, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

ok, then you don't care about others. I do. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:07, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Either you're incredibly stupid or just plain ignorant. I honestly don't care which, but don't say things that obviously aren't true, and don't put words in people's mouths. It amazes me how someone can spend the time to explain something in detail, and you completely ignore what they say every single time and respond with something like that that just makes you look plain silly. Now, I have explained exactly why your "wall of opposers" argument is invalid more than once. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I don't care about others. It means that I have the ability to examine the facts and when something is obviously a load of nonsense (as you can see by everyone that's opposed your idea), I explain why it is. I would love to see you actually respond to someone's opinion with your own facts and details just once rather than ignoring everything they say and restating what has already been refuted on multiple occasions or making an outrageous and obviously libelous statement like you did above. Now, I'm done with you. Do try to know what you're actually talking about next time before you take a shot at me like that. Andrew talk 22:29, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
And you say that I break RS:UTP pretty often... RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 08:27, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
Andrew, calm down and stop being a hypocrite. 222 talk 08:35, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

I am calm, and by no means am I a hypocrite. If what I said violated UTP, I wouldn't have said it. Sometimes it's necessary to be harsh in order to get your point across when someone absolutely refuses to listen. If you don't like it, fine, but I'm not talking to you, so with all due respect, mind your own business. Andrew talk 19:14, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Why the "wall of opposers" argument is valid is because if someone gets a wall of opposers like 6 in 9 minutes, they might be so disappointed they don't want to edit anymore(it happened before, not only for new users). Also, they might have been able to read advice for RfAs on the RS:RFA page, but maybe they didn't? Does that mean we have to chase them away with 6 opposes in 9 minutes? And they had to sign the contract saying they know it might fail. Does that say anything about getting a HUGE wall of opposes?(yes, i call 6 opposes in 9 min HUGE) We are literally chasing away editors, and as editors make this wiki an up-to-date, detailed and good fansite. If we give every new user who requests adminship a huge wall of opposes, and chase them away, we will have less editors. And most of the times, the people requesting adminship are editors that really want to help, they are prepared to do something and even think they would have a good use for rights. That means they are actually valuable people, and still if we oppose so much on new user RfAs we chase them away. I don't think that's really a good idea. And by making 2 months a minimum, we are reducing chances this happens again. We are sure nobody will pass a RfA before the 2 months anyway. We could also, if you think people might possibly pass a RfA before 2 months, reduce the minimum time to 1 month. It is just to prevent any disappointment and people leaving because of it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:27, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for responding constructively, Joey, but you have still only repeated what has already been refuted. Andrew talk 17:35, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
"It amazes me how someone can spend the time to explain something in detail, and you completely ignore what they say" You didn't answer either... This looks a bit hypocritical... You get angry if I don't answer you, but you still do it yourself. And indeed, I start about things that have already been discussed above, but wasn't that exactly what you wanted: that I answered your statements? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:23, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Joey, I haven't responded because I've already responded to all of those points, in detail, more than once. I'm not going to waste my energy continuing to stress what I've already stressed more than enough. It's all above in everything I've said in this discussion so far. Read it again and again if you wish, or ignore it. I don't really care. I've made my points, and until you bring up something new, I have nothing else to respond to. Andrew talk 00:59, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support and suggestion - How about adding in an editcount requirement too? They're in place for rollbackers and custodians, why not admins? It'll also prevent people creating accounts, leaving them for 2 months and then creating an unpassable RfA. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:35, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

The RfA page already covers that with "Candidates should have a good number of quality contributions." (implying that a good number of quality contributions = a high editcount) and "Candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki for a significant amount of time, at least several months." to prevent what you just said. --AzurisProblem, wiki? 07:07, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure people will not create accounts and leave them for 2 months, just to run a RfA. Why would you do that? If you are going to run a RfA you will also make useful contributions to get a better chance. If you wanna be admin, you will do good edits, so people making RfA accounts would probably also help. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:04, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Not because we can 'spare people's feelings', but because there's no way it will pass. Should also tack on a 200 edit count requirement like the rollback requirement. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 05:59, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I'd like to point out you guys are going down a slippery slope. Most likely no one here less than 6 months will pass an RfA, but once that limit is in place, it's too easy to jump it to 9-12. Let's say 5k edits, too easy to jump it to higher. Don't put limits on things, just use common sense. It doesn't really harm anybody for a new contributor to make an RfA and have it be open for a few hours. On that note, what do you even hope to accomplish, it's not like new contributors will read this, they will still make them. So basically all this is doing is making another law instead of relying on the judgment of our excellent sysops. No thanks. HaloTalk 06:24, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Uh..there have been RfAs that have passed well below the 6-month mark (more like 2 or 3)..such as myself. Andrew talk 16:48, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Did I say that there weren't? I just said most likely. Also, RfAs are a completely different beast now than they were back when you passed. When there was a definite need for more admins, less was expected out of people going for it. Besides, that's not even the point of what I said, I'm saying we shouldn't have a limit. HaloTalk 15:23, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Users who do nominate themselves should be aware of anything that could affect their RfA before they submit it. And on the subject of "hurting someone's feelings" - it wouldn't really hurt their feelings. If you put it in a way that is beneficial to the user who submit the RfA it would help him become a better contributor in the future. --AzurisProblem, wiki? 07:03, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Essentially per Halo. I do not see why we are overindulging on unnecessary red tape when simple common sense will suffice. If you want to strengthen the language in the recommendation, fine. But don't go about making them rules. --LiquidTalk 17:25, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - My question to the opposers is why then do we have a requirement for other features and not for an RfA. We all know that there is no way any 1 month account or 50 edit account will pass. We made it explicit what you need to have to get rollback and it is the same thing when we apply this to the RfA. Additionally, there's a requirement to vote for a featured article, it's just ludicrous to have easier requirements for an RfA. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 00:59, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

We have a 50 edit minimum for featured articles because of the risk of sockpuppeting. I don't think there's a risk like that for making an RfA. ʞooɔ 01:09, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - Per my above statement prior to the proposal. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 08:24, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - A minimum in stone isn't required. Most people offering opinions will consider this anyways, so a rule to enforce it is pointless. More rules on top of more rules... let's leave a few like this one behind the curtain.

Bonziiznob Talk

08:32, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Saves us the effort of opposing an RfA because the user is clearly too inexperienced for the position. --Callofduty4 19:27, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Just because they will not succeed, doesn't mean we should place additional red tape to give the impression that only after a period of time a user is ready for adminship. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:23, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Lolwut? It kinda is true, though.. no one brand new is going to be ready for adminship. Andrew talk 01:49, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per others. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 01:55, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

But I do agree that you should tell the nominee what RfAs are about rather than a sudden wall of oppose (I'm not saying to support). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:06, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Liquid. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:19, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comment at Lil cloud - It is not ludicrous to have lower requirements for RfA than to vote on UOTM/FIMG/whatever, for example. While the de jure requirement to pass an RfA is simply the ability to type four tildes (to sign that agreement; not even the questions are absolutely necessary), the de facto requirements are much higher, such as several months, active in some part of sysop roles, et cetera. I should also mention that the requirements for FIMG/UOTM are merely intended to stop users from inviting their friends on to only vote (this is especially a problem in UOTM where it is the number of votes that are counted). That gives an inordinate power to the individual. On the other hand, passing RfA's requires the approval of the entire community, which makes it nearly impossible for a new user to succeed.

Another point to note is that the de facto requirements for sysop vary according to the time and according to the specific user. We should not be trying to find a one-size-fits-all model for sysops. Each and every one is unique. (Well, User:Ajraddatz and User:Cook Me Plox are just about identical in that they're both huge noobs, but that's an argument for another day).

We, the community, should not be dictating set standards for something that we control. We control what we say on RfA's. It is much more productive to just ask the members of the community to exercise restraint than it is to lay out more regulations. --LiquidTalk 03:50, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - As others have stated, there are positive and negative benefits to restricting whom can request the sysop group right be it through consensus. I would support a limit, but I am also against baring users from requesting the tools. When a user requests these tools, they sign a contract to know that it may not succeed and failure to read the contract is their fault alone.

Would the person requesting the sysop group right need opposes? Maybe, however that doesn't mean users to use condemning language to get their point across. Condemning by means of harsh language or pessimistic in nature. One can't tell what the person requesting the tools will feel no matter how the oppose is written. Not every outcome is predictable but should we put a restriction? I am uncertain here.

In the past there have been users granted the tools with an account age less than the norm for the tools, but having a written rule for age or even edits in a given namespace only serves for menial edits or a bloated count at worst. I don't believe that if this were implemented that those that want administrative tools will leave the account alone for the minimum duration to request the rights. That being said, I might be proven wrong. Ryan PM 04:09, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Using common sense would make more sense (derp). We can't control the 6+ people who Oppose within 9 minutes. They should know better than to come on so strong like that, but what can you do? Put a minimum requirement on RfAs? Well, you could, but obviously people are unable to read simple minimum requirements such as that, so it wouldn't really help the matter, as the first few commenters noted. Also I'd like to point out that my wikia account is nearly 2 years old, but that doesn't mean much considering none of you knew me until a few months ago, does it? (; sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:29, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Another thing to note is that if people don't read the "you should be active, been around for a while, made a fair amount of edits" and all that, they aren't going to read the "you must have been around for at least 3 months to create an RfA", so this won't really help creation. People will most likely still oppose upon creation, and they will be archived, so really I don't see this as accomplishing anything. HaloTalk 23:49, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Okay, I see that the discussion quite died down, and that the consensus is not to put a minimum to RfAs. I suggest someone who is good at writing essays writes an essay like Wikipedia has here, but then a version that applies more for our wiki. This thread can be closed now.

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for New user RfAs. Request complete. The reason given was: per above

JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:57, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus, but an essay may be written if anyone wants to do so. HaloTalk 22:12, February 14, 2011 (UTC)