User talk:Cspurrier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Cspurrier/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

As always, it's great to work with you Craig, and thanks for voting in my RfA! I appreciate the comment, and though the nom did not gain consensus I'm glad I accepted. - Amgine 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews Academic Challenger

Sorry I didn't respond right away, I was out of town. I am the same user as the anon and I am not the same person as the person who created the Academic Challenger account on Wikinews. I tried to get the attention of Wikinewsw administrators in other ways, but they did not work. Academic Challenger 05:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to register because I am totally blind and for that reason cannot use Captia. Is there any way that you can help me with this problem? Academic Challenger 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you hold up a bit

I sense that the edits you're making to many user talk pages are in good faith, but some may consider such canvassing inappropriate. My suggestion is to stop for a brief period, then respond the feedback you receive. If nobody objects, then you could post a few more. But be wary, some may read what you're doing as obnoxious and even negatively characterize your method. My two pennies. BusterD (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was trying to catch a decent number in this first run as I have a very limited time to conduct this research in. Because of your request and since I hit the number I intended to contact  :), I will leave it at that. Wikipedia is not my home wiki (I am a Wikinewsie) and local norms definitely differ (a great topic for future research :)) so I really appreciate your comments. BTW, if you would be interested in sharing your views on the RFA procedure I would love to hear them.:) --Cspurrier (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I might also add that users who are actually currently involved in a run for adminship might have concerns responding to you in any way might be misconstrued in the formal RfA process, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

<nods> I considered that, though I believe that they might have a unique pov while they are currently undergoing the process. If any user has concerns about it effecting their RFA, I would encourage them to either ignore my request or contact me via e-mail. I will not at any point publicly tie their username with any information they provide. Additionally my research will not be posted until after the RFA's of everyone who I have contacted is completed.--Cspurrier (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't pertain to your research at all, but I can point you toward this talk page, relating to what another researcher experienced when pursuing a similar course. You are in a much better condition to ask favors, IMHO, since you have some edits on the pedia. And then again, I may be the only editor who shows any concern. Good luck with your research. BusterD (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks. That is interesting to see.--Cspurrier (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion about the RfA anthropology questions? I'd be glad to answer them; just give me a few days. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is. thanks.--Cspurrier (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA Research Answers

Hey Cspurrier – I'm happy to answer your questions, and in fact would rather do so here for transparency. I'd like anyone reading this to bear in mind that I could've just emailed them to you quietly :)

• I like the current RfA process; it relies on community consensus, which is hard to get wrong. The only case I can think of when an RfA didn't go right was with Archtransit.
• I wouldn't say I've particularly noticed a difference, but that's not to say that one doesn't exist. I'd say it's pretty obvious that if a user is nominated by a very well respected member of the community, their RfA is more likely to gather interest, and possibly more likely to succeed.
• A week is a good length. It's long enough that most members of the community get to see it and have a say, but I don't think it would be beneficial for it to be any longer.
• While undergoing RfA I don't think a user's status changes. After (independent of the outcome) the user is going to be more well known and as long as it wasn't a total disaster, I'd guess their opinion is going to be more valued, but status doesn't. Status is a difficult word to interpret on Wikipedia, as all editors are equal.

Hope this helps —αlεx•mullεr 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your answers. You are completely right regarding using the word status. It is an odd one for Wikipedia (and Wikimedia). On one hand all users are equal, on the other there is a definite difference when it comes to certain users/user classes at least on some projects. I see stewards (including myself) at least thought of, if not actually treated, differently on several of the smaller projects. It would be interesting to see if this trend applies to the English Wikipedia as well. Status and trust seem to be very closely intertwined in our (Wikimedian's) thinking, so while no user is actually of a “higher status”, users who are highly trusted may end up with the appearance of higher status. Such an interesting topic makes me wish I could devote more time to it :).--Cspurrier (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA Questions

No problem, I'd be glad to answer your questions!

• I think that the current process of selecting an admin is pretty good. The community can weigh in on the potential candidate and is able to express any praises or concerns that it may have on the potential admin. I honestly can say that I don't believe any other concept could exist on wikipedia. The community stands behind the concept of consensus and dislikes voting with a passion. It's impossible to have a panel of "experienced" editors to evaluate potential admins because that would promote bureaucracy. Who would be allowed on that panel? What requirements would panel members need to have? How would the process run? A idea of a panel would just create more problems than it would solve.
• I personally don't see much of a difference between users who are self-nom'd or users who have a nominator. A few users believe that self-nom'd users are power hungry and will abuse the tools. I think that's complete rubbish. Users who self-nom are usually just trying to help out by becoming an admin and performing tasks that just require a certain level of trust and some knowledge of the field(s) they wish to help out in.
• The one week evaluation period is a decent amount of time to judge a candidate's level of experience. It's not too short that you'd miss something important and it's not too long that it drags on further than it should. I do feel that if something worth discussing is brought up late into the RFA, then the RFA should be extended or placed on hold so everyone can evaluate the issue and the nominee is able to respond to the issue.
• A user's status doesn't really change before, during, or after the RFA. All users are considered on the same level when it comes to input. Admins don't really hold more authority than any other user when it comes to decision making. I think the reason why some people think that admins hold more "power" is because they are more active by nature. They're more involved in the community, thus they give their views more than other users usually do.

Well, I hope that helps out. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that you took the time to answer my questions. Thanks. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Research on RFA Process

I'd be happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I urge you to be aware that I am not exactly "experienced" in RFA discussions as I have only started discussing in them within the last week or two. With such, I may not be able to answer some parts of the questions you posed. As for the answers, I will post them here, but as of the now, I have to go somewhere so I will answer them later. I am happy that somebody is actually looking around to see if the process is working or not, because a lot of editors take it for granted (though there are some skeptics that do not). Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your “newness” to RFA discussions is useful. The goal of this research is to get at what RFA means to users. It would be very incomplete (even more then it already is with such a small sample :)) if I only asked experienced RFA people. One of the coolest things RFA about doing ethnography is the chance to take a look at processes that people take for granted and attempt to understand what is actually occurring and why. Thanks--Cspurrier (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?

A: The RFA process is very effective at selecting admins. However, it is not perfect. Some of the time, editors base their opinion of a user solely on the information on the nomination page and their edit count information. There are a lot of editors that will seriously look through the user's history and judge them, but others do not have time. Another fault is that not a lot of people vote in RFA. Out of the thousands of editors who know who admins are and deal with them daily do not express their opinion in any way for who they want as admins. Because of this, consensus is only determined amongst the metapedians who patroll the RFA page. Personally, I think that a good idea would be to first continue with the normal questions, but in between the voting and the questions, insert a short grace period to allow users to comment on the candidate. This would better inform users who do not fully access the user and establish a better consensus. As for the lack of participation, it cannot really be helped. It would be monstrous if thousands of editors were supporting or opposing a candidate in an RFA, so that will have to remain.

2. Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?

A: Since I have not had much experience with RFAs, I cannot really determine a different between selfnoms and other RFAs. However, I would assume that no matter who nominated the user, if the user is determined as a good admin-to-be, then he deserves the sysop flag (though others might argue otherwise).

3. Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?

A: I think that the process should be a little longer. Though a lot of RFAs establish obvious consensus, some RFAs argue for a long time over the credibility of the user. An extension of the process would allow more time just in case an argument is continuing past the deadline.

4. Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?

A: While undergoing the RFA process, I think the user's status remains pretty much the same. However, this always depends on how the nomination is going. For instance, if you have a newcomer who does not know much about the process and nominates him or herself for adminship, their status does change a little. In other words, the user points him or herself out as an obvious newbie. However, that is beside the point.

5. Was the candidate Q&A beneficial in helping you choose to support the candidate?

A: The candidate Q&A is always very helpful in choosing whether to support the candidate or not, as it is not just their answer to the question, but in what tone they answer the question. If they answer a question in a calm and intelligent fashion, it indicates a sort of levelheadedness in the user in contrast to a user who would answer a question as if he knew everything, which would show a kind of egocentric personality that might not be desirable for an admin.

I hope these answers help in your research. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Research on the RFA process

I am not the most experienced user when it comes to this, but I will answer the questions to the best of my abilities.

1. Well, I believe the current process is pretty good. It allows administrators to be determined by consensus.

2. In my personal experience so far, I have not noticed to much difference between self-noms and nominations by other users. Though I am sure there are people who dislike self-noms, but if we had to wait on someone else to nominate every administrator, I am sure that many of our good administrators would not be administrators right now.

3. One week seems like the appropriate amount of time to me. It gives plenty of time to determine if a candidate is ready/suitable for administratorship. If something is brought up that needs more time, than it should be extended. If it is clear that the Rfa is going to be successful, I see no reason why it couldn't be closed a few hours early, of course, only when this is absolutely clear.

4. All users have the same status in Wikipedia, administrators just have a few extra tools to help clean up things.

5. Yes, they are beneficial. Most of the time users add in extra questions. This can help more in determining whether the candidate is ready/suitable for administratorship, though I do not like it when it goes over board on the number of these extra questions, but a moderate amount is good and useful.

Hope that helps. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. The selfnom vs nominations issue is one that has surprised me a bit. On Wikinews (my home wiki) self noms almost always fail. Most of the time if a user stands a chance of becoming an admin someone nominates them fairly quickly. It is interesting in looking through the archives and in the responses I have received to my questions how little selfnom vs nominations have mattered. --Cspurrier (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one question and just added my answer. It is interesting to see differences like that between different projects. Your welcome. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Research

Hello. I noticed that you were doing research on RfA. That's quite an interesting process, and I thought that maybe you'd want to look at the difference between reconfirmation RfAs and normal RFAs? There's been some controversy around it and perhaps you would want to look at that. Another interesting thing that you may find interesting is RfB, as the standards are quite higher than those for RfA. I don't mean to butt in, so please ignore this message at will. :-) Best of luck in your research, I hope it goes well. Cheers, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• My responses:

1. Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins? Yes, generally, but it tends to be under-selective. At least one vandal has gotten through in the past 3 months.
2. Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms? No, except self-noms are distrusted by some long-time users.
3. Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter? Just right, Goldilocks.
4. Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over? Yes, criticism increases with visibility.
5. Was the candidate Q&A beneficial in helping you choose to support the candidate? The basic questions are not always helpful, but the optional questions draw out the real issues. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)