Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Adminship poll/C

< Wikipedia:Adminship poll

Situation on RfA/RfB : More functional or politicized? edit

A common criticism for Requests for Adminship over the years is that the process is overtly politicized; some bring their advocacy on the table, others personal vendettas, and at times things can get pretty nasty on candidates. Over the past year, do you think the process has improved (as it has become more civil and functional), or there is more mudslinging than ever?

Improved edit

Worse edit

  1. Far less civil, more of a popularity contest, too easy to game. Mr.Z-man 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oh, it's gotten really bad on this front. Wizardman 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There are too many people to please and too many things a candidate must be proficient in for an RfA to be successful. Captain panda 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Oppose — user is a Romanian nationalist". That is the state of affairs at RfA. EJF (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Definitely. Candidates are often put under far too much pressure over silly things. Plus discussions are often derailed for irrelevancies or vendettas. JudgeAssess the user, not their RfA. the wub "?!" 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RFA can't decide what it's supposed to do, so we've got a ridiculous state of affairs where people are being held to wildly varying standards for wildly varying reasons. It's basically a forum for vendettas, in many cases, or point-making about aspects of Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The standards are way too high, and yes, it's politicalized. We have people who could be excellent admins, but only have been here for three months, or only 500 contributions. IMO, anyone that can be trusted with the tools should be given a probationary period, and after that is up, they get re-evaluated for permanent adminship. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. You could put a clean white sheet up for RfA and at the end it'd need ten trips through the washing machine. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ref: Cohen's RfA. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I have some questions for the creator of this poll... MBisanz talk 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Too many stupid questions. MER-C 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I think it's even significantly worse than when I ran last September. I'd be about afraid to go though it the way it's been recently. hmwithτ 13:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. the number of questions has become staggering. The idea of opposing for self noms and the idea that the nom should have expertise in everything are troubling, as are some fo the other -itis based opposes. Dlohcierekim 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. It's the questions, the people who oppose pretty much every RfA, and the users who are here just to be admins who ruin the process. If these things were removed, RfA would be like heaven. Majorly (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I oppose popularity contests as prima facie evidence of a broken system. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Kind of a popularity contest (not a lot, but a little, and I think that would be hard to fix), but the sudden influx of questions, wow. Useight (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. RfA/RfB is getting more and more awful; perfect candidates are crushed by token but loud opposition, and only candidates lucky enough to have never spoken up at the wrong time or crossed paths with a particular RfA-sinker seem to be able to pass without controversy. krimpet✽ 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I definitely agree with Majorly above regarding the insane amounts of questions at the moment, and the people who oppose every RfA they participate in: neither of these factors help the process. I also strongly agree with this post from Malleus Fatuarum the other day about RfA (and RfB) being a place for some people to get revenge or "strike back" against users they've disagreed with. The other things I really dislike about RfA is when a "popular" user opposes an RfA, and friends/supporters of that person then oppose the RfA, or when someone decides to sink an RfA by bringing back an old dispute, therfore turning it into a battleground. Finally, now that "user self-nominated" is becoming a more common reason to oppose, RfA really is worse now than it was 1 year (and even 6 months) ago. Acalamari 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Mr.Z-man. Too easy to pass and driven by opinion, and aside from that theres the hassle Opposers get. They should make a page to go along with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. It could be entitled, Wikipedia:Please don't Bite the Opposers or at the very least, Wikipedia:Please do not bite Kurt Weber--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Nakon 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Definitely. We're so concerned about that "one little edit" or that "response I don't agree with" that it clouds our judgment. It seems that things like "trust" don't pass anymore. Singularity 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I went over and looked at RfA just now, and... Wow. That's really unfortunate. What can we do to change the culture? I honestly don't know. Grandmasterka 05:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Questions have become rampant, opposes are nitpicky, supports aren't detailed. The process can be mechanical and unfriendly. Very stilted. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. From that time I started contributing to Wikipedia I feel with RfA that civility has gone down hill, opposition has become more over trivial issues, and choice of questions has become much more of an issue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Definitely worsened. One mistake can bring down an RfA if it pisses off the wrong people. James086Talk | Email 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. The "minimal requirements" (WP:ITIS) increased which is worrying. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 08:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still the same edit

  1. Wikipedia is diverse, people are diverse, opinions are diverse; ultimately the dynamics are going to be the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'll add that, in addition to what LHvU says, the dynamics are going to be the same in most of the proposed alternatives to RFA. People are people. Welcome to being in a community with very many people. --JayHenry (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pretty stable, from what I've seen over the last few years. As noted above, this is the kind of thing you get in a community - it can be good, it can be bad, it can be painful. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doesn't seem too much different to a year ago. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd have to say its the same, depending on the case. Some make it look more worse than others. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seems to be causing the same amount of drama as ever (which is to say, too much). shoy 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pretty much the same, although I believe the average IQ has slipped another point or two. Dorftrottel (complain) 03:29, April 21, 2008
  9. More stupid questions, but essentially the same as a couple years ago. It is no tougher than applying for any job that requires trust. (1 == 2)Until 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Still the same - that is to say, very bad. I've seen way too many RfA's derailed by grudge-holders, and way too many participants willing to accept mudslinging without checking into the slinger's history. The net result is to discourage good candidates who have actually been involved in controversies from applying - yet those are exactly the editors who make the best admins. MastCell Talk 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It hasn't changed much. Discussion is flattened on WT:RFA by fueding groups and we can't get anywhere. But that doesn't mean the whole process is bad. Malinaccier (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other edit

  1. This question assumes that you thought it was bad in the first place. -- Naerii 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am constantly told it's not a vote, and the closing person can ignore any not relevant comments. So why do people get so worked up when an editor always !votes no to self-noms, or yes to people who have two syllable names (or whatever criteria they like?) Indeed, why don't they just find someone who'll always !vote yes to self noms? Also: The amount f questions people have to answer is freaky. I've seen some people recommend asking a couple of Fills AGF questions, which seems like a good idea. Expand that list, and ask 3 or 4 questions from it. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not certain I am understanding what's being asked. I really think that this section's premise should be re-phrased. The responders are clarifying for you. ("Axe-to-Grind" would seem to be the sense you're looking for? Or just the civility issues? Or the seeming popularity contest? Or some combination? Or something else?) - jc37 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Refuse to answer such loaded questions. Splash - tk 12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I see less advocacy of the type "Oppose, because the user is too deletionist", but there has been an unfortunate explosion in the number of so-called "optional" questions. It has changed in many ways, some for the better, some for the worse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per DanBealeCocks. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminship_poll/C&oldid=1146516517"