Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 156

Could it be?
Could we finally have 4-in-a-row? Well, one is in the discretionary range but it could happen. After the drama and stress of watching the nearly-successful or should've-waited-another-2-months failed RFAs of the past few weeks this is refreshing. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Once you've been watching RfA for a couple of years, you recognize its cycles; I never felt like the doom-n-gloom about the dearth of candidates was much warranted, and I don't think a four-in-a-row is that spectacular either. Not trying to be a wet blanket; I'm obviously happy to see more successful candidacies, but I just thought I'd point out that history is merely repeating itself. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's five now, three of them in the promotion range, and two in the discretionary range. While good, this doesn't mean we should stop hunting down good potential admins!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC).
 * I would honestly be surprised if Geni's RfA didn't require a 'crat chat or, at the very least, a closing statement. However, we're counting our eggs before they hatched... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 09:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but I also notice trends based upon the discussions here... If a thread starts something like: "OH MY GAWD, we've had FOUR failed RFA's in a row... what are we going to do?"  Ok, now might be a good time to consider running for admin. Similarly, if a thread starts: "Wow, we just had five successful RfA's in a Row, we need to keep this up."  That might not be a good time to run!  Of course, I may be cynical about it, but that does seem to be a trend.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a healthy backlash lately against opposing over miniscule screw-ups. As someone who's frequently opposed in the past for (ahem) disputable reasons, I know I've been trying to evaluate candidates more carefully lately in the wake of the recent RfA trials by ordeal. Townlake (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was new to RFA, I felt the need to make sure I used "high standards" to evaluate candidates. I don't do that anymore. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The disparity that exists in personal criteria will always be a reality. RfA will forever obey a cyclical behavior. I think we've seen a plateau though as far as how stringent RfA will become. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, now we are at 6, with only 1 in real jeopardy, including two that will likely close nearly-unanimously with 100+ supports. Heck, but for some anal-retentive jerk, PeterSymonds would be unanimous.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, watch your tone. No self-directed attacks. Keep it civil. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was thinking, "Huh, never heard of that one before." Checking its history reveals it's only 30 minutes old, so that explains that. Useight (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vodello's comments
I feel uncomfortable approaching User:Vodello myself, as I left him a note last week and did not receive a response. He has removed comments from his talk page (not just from me, from others also) and evidently prefers to be left alone. Maybe someone who knows him from before I entered the scene can communicate more effectively with him.

Vodello's contributions to the encyclopedia are overwhelmingly positive, but his recent comments at RFA have been...difficult, and he seems less interested in articles than previously. In the last week he has opposed several RFAs and supported none, and generally, as I look back through his contribution record, I see that he opposed the majority of RFAs to which he has contributed. Now that itself is no problem: people should vote as they see fit. However, I am concerned that the tone of his comments is making me a little uncomfortable, and may be producing the same reaction in other readers. A friendly note to take a break from RFA might be helpful.

I could cite examples here, and may yet do this later, but I don't want this thread to degenerate into a series of accusations and counterattacks. I'm just trying to see if there's a way to defuse this situation. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just my opinion but those who want to be "left alone" (I call them "talk page blankers") probably shouldn't be participating in "discussions" and "quasi polls" like RFA and AFD are "discussions". You just can't make a potentially contentious !vote and then cover your ears while shouting "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, his opposes are frequent and particularly vicious. They do not help the already toxic atmosphere on RFAs one bit. He reminds me very much of SashaNein, who spent his last days opposing RFAs and voting to speedy keep on AFDs. It must be a miserable life for some people to have to resort to that. I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy it not because I want to be a martyr.  Majorly  talk  03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * seresin ( ¡? )  03:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Majorly. The RfA contributions by Vodello/SashaNein are not helpful.  Enigma msg  06:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OHHH! HAHA! I could have sworn there was something about that :-D  Majorly  talk  03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified Vodello of this discussion, though I've little hope of this leading to constructive dialogue, given some recent edit summaries.  Dloh  cierekim  04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seresin; thanks for that. Suddenly it all makes sense. Even in my most oppose-friendly moments I've never been that toxic. I did once call someone an idiot, but that is all (well, I said there was a 50% chance he was an idiot). Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the consensus that we want to avoid banning people from RFA just because we don't like their message. On the other hand, if there's clear evidence that someone's comments don't seem to have much to do with the evaluation of candidates, but seem more like an attempt to poison the waters, then we're failing in our wiki-duties if we don't at least have a discussion about a ban from RFA.  I haven't reviewed Vodello's comments so I don't know if this applies in this case. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly think he should be banned from RFAs.  Majorly  talk  16:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Majorly, I think it's about time you took a good long look at your own attitude towards others at RfA. Suggesting that people be banned from discussion is decidedly fascist. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vodello has clearly indicated he is not interested in discussing. Leaving a derogatory comment, then blanking ones talk page with insulting remarks, Vodello strikes me as someone who is not here to participate in RFAs in a way that follows our community norms. There are other people who oppose a lot. They do it in a much more pleasant manner, and are willing to explain themselves, rather than ignoring pleas of various people, or basically telling them to "fuck off". I don't want to ban him from RFAs, but if he can't be bothered to participate in a more civil manner and be willing to discuss and explain his comments, then what does he expect?  Majorly  talk  18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please note I did not suggest Vodello be banned. That was Dank's idea. Perhaps you should be telling him about his attitude.  Majorly  talk  19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

←I'm not familiar with SashaNein, but from what I can see Vodello isn't that abusive at RfA. For example, this and this don't seem bad at all. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The second one certainly is.  Majorly  talk  18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"'I can in no way trust that this user will use the tools responsibly. Regranting access may only serve to damage the project further.'"
 * How is that wrong? It could be a genuine concern, so would you care to elaborate? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't wrong at all - why people receive such condemnation for indicating that granting the sysop bit will/might harm the project is beyond me - if people can say "net positive", then surely "net negative" is far game. And that's really all it is. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's basically saying "You're not good enough". It helps to give proper reasons. We should support by default, and only oppose if there is a good reason to. We should not oppose and only support if there is a good reason to. That is why the atmosphere is so unpleasant here. People full of anger, bitterness, and negativity. RFA is not the place to let it all out.  Majorly  talk  18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While a harsh judgement, maybe unduly (or not), it's not abusive - it's a legitimate, relevant position on the subject. It is a source of unpleasant irony that those bemoaning the state of RFA today are the most active in ruining the atmosphere.  The solution is not to continue attacking everyone who opposes in ways you don't like.  That'll only exacerbate the problem. Wily D  18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The very suggestion an editor of nearly five years, a Commons admin, an OTRS respondent, and apart from a few mishaps, has the very best interests for the project, would "damage the project further" is simply uncalled for. Geni has been regularly contributing since 2004. He served as an admin for just over two years, is highly knowledgable on copyright and other image law (an area that most admins wouldn't go near), and in my experience he's a very friendly person. Having met him a few times in real life, I am privileged to have got to know him a little better. Suggesting he would damage Wikipedia, a project he has been diligently working on for several years is an unsubstantiated claim which is completely false. He also fails to provide diffs or evidence. Yes, we all know Geni had a rough time as an admin, but he was last one nearly two years ago, and things have changed. He's already trusted in other places, and I seriously cannot see what "damage" it is that would be caused by promoting him.  Majorly  talk  18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Geni very well might damage the project, or he might not. The only way to know for sure is to measure.  Until then, we all have to take our best guesses.  That you like Geni, and think he'd do well doesn't mean everyone else must.  Majorly, don't complain about the poison atmosphere and spew poison in the same breath.  It's just not wise. Wily D  19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say they must. I said they should say how he would damage the project - maybe I'm missing something they're seeing. It's offensive to say a productive editor would damage Wikipedia, without at least backing yourself up. This is not a place to hurl around insults at the candidate. A vandal is someone who damages the project. Geni is not a vandal.  Majorly  talk  19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I am not the one spewing "poison" here. I am not the one hurling around unsubstantiated claims of people damaging the project. All I'm seeing here is a good editor being trashed for no good reason. I cannot believe people are sitting back and accepting it.  Majorly  talk  19:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether an editor replies or not to questions about his/her vote!, the editor's vote! stands. Vodello's votes! are not vandalism, not random and not out of leftfield. Still, Vodello's votes! carry no more and no less weight than anyone else's. We bureaucrats take all votes! and comments into consideration. We can't make an honest decision without reading the entire spectrum of views. Yes, the RfA process needs work, but telling editors what they can and cannot say - that is not a solution. Geni is not a vandal, and neither is Vodello. Kingturtle (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vodello is blanking his talk page with vicious comments in the edit summary, when he is questioned about it. That's not the same as not replying. That's just plain rude. Why are you writing vote with an exclamation mark after it?  Majorly  talk  19:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's some kind of... young whippersnapper speak. I think it means "vote... not".  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, as a decidedly !young editor, I believe the answer is right here in Wikipedia, even if not all who use the construct are aware of its origin. Frank  |  talk  19:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen !vote, but never vote!. I personally use vote, because that's what it is.  Majorly  talk  19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was admonished once for saying vote instead of !vote, so vote! was my response at the time. I guess it just stuck. Kingturtle (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

←Don't know if you guys have been keeping up with the Eco drama today, but he just got indef blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=264559750&oldid=264559607. Several people are bemoaning the fact that they were supporting his RFA. Well, I supported, and I don't feel guilty. One of the advantages of being !young (Thanks for that one, Frank) is that I know from hard experience that I won't always get people figured out. Sometimes, the only indication I'll get that they're about to behave very badly is a history of a little bit too much drama, and a single instance (out of over ten thousand edits) of a "threat", as with Eco. This suggests we should lighten up on the people who oppose based on only a "few" mistakes; sometimes, a few mistakes are the only clues you get. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although in this particular case, if the initial complaint had arrived after his sysopping, the end results would probably be identical. It might have would up being the shortest adminship in Wikipedia history, not counting clerical errors.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think most candidates should be promoted. I am a lot stricter than most when it comes to who should be promoted and who should not. If blanking my talk page is considered a punishable offense, you will need to change the guidelines at WP:TALK. In any case, I will no longer comment on any RFA candidates. Thank you. Vodello (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact tagging this entire page
I also have a modest proposal: if you believe RFA is broken, or if you believe that there is a necessity for desysopping, or whatever your viewpoint is, that's wonderful. However, your argument remains simply that: argument. There's a lot of what-if and I-know mentalities roaming around here. That's a good thing, as it creates diversity in viewpoints. However, I propose that you prove that the data support your assertion before motioning for and/or implementing a huge change. Some common arguments and some ways I brainstormed to gather data to support your claims:
 * 1) RFA is broken&mdash;too many of the wrong people get accepted. This argument appears to be raised repeatedly due to the perceived difficulty in de-sysopping an administrator.  However, the reference point is undefined and arbitrary.  How difficult is it?  Why is it difficult?  Getting to the root of it, the way to statistically demonstrate that this point holds water is to gather either the entire list of currently and priorly-active administrators or randomly select a statistically valid subset.  From there, simply look for adverse RFCs, being blocked while an administrator, search the AN/ANI archives for adverse events, RFARBs where the admin is found in misconduct, and finally what percentage results in desysopping. Do this for every administrator in your random sample.  If RFA is broken and too many of the wrong people get accepted (i.e., RFA is a poor selector for well-behaved administrators), you should be able to see statistically significant results.
 * 2) RFA is broken&mdash;not enough of the right people get accepted. This one's a bit harder to test out, because there's no way to know if someone not accepted to administratorship would have been a good admin.  However, it's possible that as a tangent you could maybe look for adverse behavior after a failed RFA.  For example, if someone edit warred or something and they didn't pass RFA because of that incident, it's reasonable to assume that people will make mistakes and that they can learn from them.  So, simply prove that.  Take a random sample of failed RFAs and run the same tests as just mentioned directly above (in order to check for adverse behavior).  You still won't be able to give truly supporting evidence that someone who did not become and administrator would have made a good one, but you can at least support the notion that if one were to discount the original event that tanked an RFA, there might be a stronger argument for reform in what events should be brought to the table and which might be written off as accidents.
 * 3) Desysopping/deadminship needs to be easier/there needs to be an RFDA. Also a totally unproven argument.  Why does it need to be easier?  Is there a significant problem with the behavior of a significant number of admins?  If so, then that would be easy to demonstrate statistically using the same methods as in #1.
 * 4) Potential administrators should do more/less vandal fighting (or) Potential administrators should do more/less article work. This argument frequently arises during the RFA process but is repeatedly never backed by statistical data.  If increased privileges on the encyclopedia are positive or negatively correlated with adverse events with respect to the primary types of edits a person makes either before or after the RFA process, then these events would hold water.  If a substantial number of edits pre-RFA are one type, but post-RFA they're strongly correlated with negative events, this trend would be apparent in analyzing the data from administrators' edits.  It's important to note that whether it's your opinion that "in an ideal world" administrators would do more this or that, it's wholly irrelevant because it's untestable.  The real question is whether the increased privileges (e.g., blocking, protecting, deleting) result in more adverse events if the average administrator makes more or less of a certain type of edit (e.g., vandal reverting, featured article building, posts to ANI, etc).
 * 5) There should/should not be a minimum age to be an administrator. Either way, prove the argument.  If there's no statistically significant correlation between an administrator's age and the number of adverse events that administrator is held at fault for, then there should be no minimum age.  If there is, however, a significant correlation between an administrator's age and the number of adverse events, then one could argue that age should be weighted more heavily.
 * 6) Statistics don't matter&mdash;the untold damage of doing this or that is immeasurable.... Perhaps, but you're on an encyclopedia, so you have to prove how much damage occurs by measuring it.  Otherwise, we assume you're spouting nonsense and revert you.

Rinse and repeat. As with all of these and always in running statistics, correlation != causation, but since people are currently pulling arbitrarty numbers directly from their rectums (e.g., "99%" and "95%"), it would help if everyone upheld one of our most important principles: verifiability.  It's truly amazing that people are paradoxically too lazy to run the numbers, but altogether too eager to implement widespread change with mere argument and belief alone. At the very least, I implore people to read the archives for the RFA talk page.

Also, please don't start rehashing, as part of this thread, the arguments listed above. That will accomplish nothing, completely derail productive discussion, and you'll have completely missed the point of this thread. If someone does rehash those arguments, don't argue with them. Simply point them to this statement so that they know that they didn't read the entire post. If, however, you have another way to test the various arguments raised or have an argument of your own and a way to statistically test it, by all means post it.

The main idea one more time those at home: verifiability.  We're an encyclopedia based on tentative fact. It only stands to reason that our processes reflect that. ...and don't ask me to to do it; I'm not arguing the points above&mdash; you guys are. If you want change, do the grunt work in order to prove it needs to happen.

-- slakr \ talk / 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Booyah. Garden . 23:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent post. Now someone just has to do it. Who wants to volunteer? Please do NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen. Would someone like to move this to a subpage. For a larger RfC.  iMatthew //  talk  // 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm... hold on there, cowboys. Slakr, you've made some valid points, but you appear to have completely missed that much of the argument on this page concerns counterfactuals ie a situation that does not exist.  You cannot provide evidence for counterfactual claims (you cannot prove or disprove them and rely on argument).  Many of your tests are nice sounding but in fact completely ridiculous.  So I look at the 24 involuntarily desysopped admins who have not requested readminship, then I count ANI threads and RFCs across the community.  Then, whatever percentage I come up with I can present as evidence and even proof.   Statistically significant correlation between what? --JayHenry (t) 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What a pile of hypocrisy! "If there's no statistically significant correlation between an administrator's age" - correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no records of admins age, neither public nor hidden. NVO (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that hypocritical? — kur  ykh   00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty bad. Just how could someone threatening to "Otherwise, we assume you're spouting nonsense and revert you." be admitted to adminship? Welcome to brave new world. NVO (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you don't agree with my statement, however I nonetheless believe that it is still possible. For example, some administrators do, in fact, publish their ages on their user pages.  Moreover, one could also put forth a request that administrators who wish to volunteer their age for the purpose of research with the understanding that any such information would be confidential.  Feel free to suggest other methods.
 * I also noticed that you disagreed with my allusion to our approach to opinions derived from original research being integrated with articles. I do still feel that I'm correct in my summation of our original research and verifiability policies, though I understand that one might not believe that the same standards should be applied to RFA. You would apparently not be alone in your reasoning.  However, if you truly believe that another method (other than verifiable data) is superior, please contribute that idea.
 * JayHenry, my argument from #1 (and those similar to it) stems from observable data. There are observable, quantifiable data with regard to administrators who, having clearly passed RFA, have been involuntarily desysopped.  There are also observable, quantifiable data with regard to administrators who, having clearly passed RFA, have not been involuntarily desysopped.  Moreover, of those who have not been involuntarily desysopped, there are observable, quantifiable data of those who have been the subject of a (or several) conduct RFC(s), have been explicitly reported to ANI, or have been blocked for whatever reason while already an administrator.  And, again, while one is unable to causally relate (i.e., "prove") that the RFA process (or an aspect thereof) is the root of the deficiency (again, should there be a statistically significant number of administrators with problematic behavior), there I doubt anyone would disagree with inferring that perhaps the selection process should be revised.
 * To put it more simply, if you believe that a machine is in the process of breaking down, there are observable aspects of the component parts in that machine, as well as the final product, that could hint at the root cause of the problem. There are ways of scientifically testing those things.  The same holds true if you believe that RFA is broken (or is breaking down).  There are observable aspects of the components and the end product's viability that could hint at the root cause of the problem.
 * The main idea of my post was that it's all well and good to state your opinion that RFA is broken and needs to be changed in a certain way, but I believe that you need to be able to provide support for those assertions as best as possible using the data available. Arguments are great and all, but basing policy on whim and opinion when there are quantifiable data available seems like a bad idea&mdash; at least to me.  I could be wrong, though.
 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a matter of political principle I'm totally in favour of holding accountable those in positions of power. However slakr  is quite right, we need evidence that that there is a problem and that, if there is, it is not handled satisfactorily by existing procedures. --Philcha (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Slakr, I'm sorry, you're not seeing the flaw in your thinking. All admins (in the last five years at least) became admins through the RFA process.  We can't measure the statistically significant flaws of this process against a hypothetical process because our entire sample gained the tools through the same process.  Again, I ask you, statistically significant what?  Your analogy to the encyclopedia is, similarly, completely and fundamentally flawed.  An encyclopedia is a compendium of human knowledge, and it thus stands to reason that we should stick to verifiable facts.  Here, at WT:RFA, people are talking not only about what is the case, but about what should be.  An encyclopedia is not in the business of what should be, or how things could be better.  In discussing the management of our project, we have to be able to have arguments about what should be and how things could be better. --JayHenry (t) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that asking for numbers is completely irrelevant, nothing can be gained from it, and that we should ignore all relevant data because nothing can be gained from it? If I've incorrectly summed up your viewpoint, please correct me. -- slakr  \ talk / 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be an incorrect summary of my viewpoint, yes. There are testable and untestable hypotheses.  You identified a number of untestable hypotheses and demanded that editors test them.  I'm calling you out on that.  Your fourth example is the only time you got close to something testable, and ironically this is the only case where you recognized that you were talking about something that's still untestable.  Just because you have 1) data and 2) arguments, it does not necessarily follow that you can apply those data to prove the arguments.  In such instances, there's nothing wrong with argument. --JayHenry (t) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that there is nothing to measure this process against makes sense to me. You can't possibly conclude that some other process is better if we've never had or tested any other process, although potentially there are other methods being used within the Wikimedia community that we could infer against. Further, I think we all can agree that the nature (if not the technical process) of RfA changes fairly rapidly. You won't get meaningful results by measuring administrators selected over a 5 year period, because the implications will change completely every six months or so. I like data as much as anyone else, and would be interested in the sort of analysis slakr describes, but it doesn't seem like that data will help much in choosing how or whether to change RfA with an eye towards improving it. The level of disatisfaction is its own evidence. My feeling is that RfA is a focal point for cultural change within Wikipedia, and the shifting emphasis in analysing candidates and the resulting disgruntlement is an inevitable indicator of that change. Avruch  T 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * - Mailer Diablo 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How to fix RfA in one easy step
(Sorry to pick on you, Julian.)

"RfA is a discussion, not a !vote"

This translates to "RfA is a discussion, not a not a vote", which translates to "RfA is a discussion and a vote". Thus I present to you...Giggy's quick, easy, and hopefully somewhat useful improvement to RfA.

I propose that we ban the use of the words "vote", "discussion", "election", and any synonyms (or antonyms), unless whoever is using the word can prove they know what they are talking about. I am fully aware that this could half the number of edits made to RfA pages, but that's a damn good thing if you think about it. Giggy (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but that'd be pretty hard to enforce given the structure of RfA.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Why? RFA manifestly is a vote, and our continued insistence on promulgating the lie that it is not is one of the greater problems with the system. // roux   07:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but simply labeling it as a vote would be a lie in itself. A true vote forbids discussion and mandates irrationality to be counted at the same level as common sense, while RfA is manifestly none of these things (yet). — kur  ykh   08:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, declare comments to vote optional or banish them to talk page altogether. NVO (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not(not(X)) does not necessarily imply X :-) Geometry guy 14:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If we are going to ban the word "discussion", why not just cut to the inevitable have Jimbo pick all future admin? :D Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support that! Time to start up a 'Jimbo beer money fund' methinks :P. Mmm, tastes like nepotism! Ironholds (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to work just fine for arbcom selections! Giggy (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC) :P
 * That wins my 'best way to make people stop a chain of thought and look awkward' award for 2009. And so early in the competition! Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is so full of lulz. 718smiley.png - Mailer Diablo 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Giggy, if it was a discussion and not a vote, we would be talking about a candidate and not numbering our opinions. You are mistaken. Until the structure of RfA is changed, you will have to vote.  Syn  ergy 20:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggy, I think your argument is like saying that if you removed all the warning labels, people wouldn't be stupid anymore.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be stupid for long. Still, don't see the point, but luckily it doesn't strike me as a serious proposal :-P Avruch  T 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A few people here have said that it quite definitely is a vote and not a discussion. Why then do they not rebut people who call it a discussion (and not a !vote, or whatever)? Defining RfA is the first step in fixing its "problems". Also, someone award Avruch a barnstar. Giggy (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA isn't a vote. It's called a !vote because it resembles a vote but actually is a process within a greater consensus system. Bureaucrats judge consensus by means of numerical rules of thumb, reading and weighing the discussion and arguments, and coming to a conclusion about the community's will. A vote would be a simple up and down majority, supermajority, whatever support or oppose with no rationale. Our system could not be replaced by a software feature or a bot, since it relies on bureaucrats as community judges of sentiment. I disagree with anyone who tries to suggest that RfA is broken or ill-defined. The system works pretty well and makes sense if you understand what it is. Andre (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain I agree with that. It seems to make sense to you even though you clearly don't  understand what it is, a popularity contest. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm popular? Wow, that's news. =P — kur  ykh   01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you an administrator? Then you must have been popular once. I can't possibly comment on whether you're still popular. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it more of a not unpopular contest? If you don't rub people the wrong way, you're in--doesn't matter if they actually like you or not. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very good description that sums up the popularity aspect and the problems of the NOBIGDEAL mindset. Giggy (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A very good point that's right at the nub of it. Living the quiet life in some backwater like AfD, head down and obsequious, is definitely a sure route to success in the admin stakes. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Living the quiet life sounds like an awesome idea at the moment.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It worked for me. (barely)--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 06:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread is superflous to the one above.--<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">t /<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">c 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

'Surveyor' Usergroup

 * Further reading : New userrights group, Requests for Surveyorship?

Many of you would have heard about the Flagged Revisions trial that looks set for implementation. According to the version of the trial, there would be a <font face="Courier New">'surveyor' Usergroup, newly created to decide which article(s) would have the Flagrevs turned on. (not to be confused with the additional <font face="Courier New">'reviewer' that will also be created, which only simply flags diffs as reviewed) And it is planned to be handed out by B'crats. The community or/and crats would have to decide how the rights are handed out for this purpose, be it here or elsewhere. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut's RfA Reform Proposal

 * 1) Take the existing RfA format, including all the discussion/debate, the "it's not a vote, it's a !vote", the existence of crats as super-users who can override the majority&mdash;everything about the current RfA system that we love to hate&mdash; and make it the RDesysop system
 * 2) Make RfA a real and actual vote. Not a discussion, not a !vote, but a vote (see below why this is acceptable).
 * 3) The caveats about the RfA vote would be:
 * 4) that only registered users in good standing can vote, and
 * 5) that a clearly, explicitly-defined supermajority (it can be 60%, 65%, 70%, whatever, but needs to be stated in black and white) is needed to succeed. Those are the only restrictions.
 * 6) Of course folks can still add comments to their votes (not !votes). But no crat action or oversight is needed. Hit the level of support, win the prize, end of story.
 * 7) There might be a hard-coded rule about time as registered editor before being nommed for RfA is possible. There might even be an edit-count rule I suppose, but that seems a bit much to me.
 * 8) Oh, just thought of one way crats could intervene: they could extend voting period if  new, crucial info comes to light.
 * 9) I would feel beter about crats as super-users in the desysop process rather than in the sysop process. That is, if a gang of goofy MMORPG users all decide to take a break from their game, IRC each other and nom their favorite editor for sysop, then gang-Support the nom through, well, allegedly sysop is No Big Deal. But the same should not be true of desysop; it should be a Big Deal. Hence crats can step in as super-users if they see the need.
 * 10) This devolves the main responsibility for desysop off the shoulders of arbs and onto the shoulders of the community, as overseen by crats as super-users. Here I note that ArbCom can still desysop folks as they see fit; it's just that the usual process would be through the community and crats.
 * That would be all. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 08:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For one thing, "I would feel beter [sic] about crats as super-users in the desysop process rather than in the sysop process": crats can only give people the bit and not take it away, rendering this illogical in terms of the tools afforded to them. — kur  ykh   08:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for sic-ing my typo; hope to return the favor. Of course, whomever has the actual poer to desysop would be the one to flip the switch. The decision-making process is in question here. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make this clear and open: I oppose this proposal, for these reasons:
 * This forces the use of bad logic and patently false reasons for opposition to be legitimized at the same level as reasonable opposes.
 * Let's say 75% is the mark a candidate needs to cross. What makes 75% so different from 74.9% other than an otherwise-statistically insignificant 0.1%? Both of them have only the trust of about 3/4 of the community, but one becomes an admin and the other does not.
 * The idea of WP:NOBIGDEAL needs to be changed. The idea of adminship being "no big deal" is that conferring adminship does not imply the conferring of authority to a person, but only an addition of tools. I highly disagree with the current notion that "no big deal" means confer the tools to others in the guise of WP:AGF despite potential pitfalls; I find the current definition a misinterpretation of the original statement made by Jimbo (this is a philosophical argument for another time, I guess).
 * The community already has de facto power to desysop. By a strong expression of disenchantment with the actions of an admin, the community can pressure ArbCom to act or the admin to resign. It has done so before.
 * This process does nothing to reduce the perceived rancor that exists in RfA into another, even more rancorous, venue, leading to little benefit to the community. — kur  ykh   08:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the views. Good thoughts. As always, where you come out on a questions depends very much on the definitions and assumptions that you start from. You are saying (it seems to me) the starting defs are in error, and RfA should be a big deal...Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 10:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Adminship is no big deal but Wikipedia is built upon consensus, not votes. Like flaggedrevs, voting for admins is another de-wiki "solution" I think we should not adapt from there. De-wiki is run by Germans, so they might have some strange ideas (I know, I am German ;-) which don't work elsewhere. Say we have candidate X, who is a great candidate and he gathers 98% support votes and two days before the end of the RfA someone finds out that X is really a sock-puppeeter/hate-speech-user/paid spy/etc. and people start opposing uniamously. With consensus, no crat could/would/should this RfA (say it's an 80% now) as promote because there is clearly no consensus to promote the candidate based on what new information is known. With votes, he would be promoted because only the numbers count. And voila, one bad admin promoted. I for one think the problem is not that big that we should completely replace it with something that is clearly worse. Regards  So Why  10:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Kurykh, this will legitimise bad reasoning for opposing votes. We have enough people using bad reasons as it is, and I'm comfortable with bureaucrats being able to use common sense and ignore such reasoning on closure, if Wikipedia would be improved with that candidate as admin. I'm not sure what this is trying to solve either. The process is fine as it is - the only thing that's not to love are the people who have started showing up making it a train wreck.  Majorly  talk  13:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I'd like to suggest my new reform proposal: blacklist everyone who has contributed to this page or an RfA in the last six months from going near it again and oversight the 'adminship is no big deal' speech and everything related to it. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. That people pretend it is is helping to "break" RFA. I think the only people who should be blacklisted are those that believe it is a big deal. Jimbo may have said it in 2003, but it should apply to today just as much as it did then.  Majorly  talk  15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pile-on oppose. Let the badgering begin.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 15:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To mine or Ling Nut's? Because mine was intended as a joke. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ling.Nut's. Sorry for the confusion.--Aervanath (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Majorly, this will legitimise bad reasoning for support votes. After all, the supports are far more dangerous than the opposes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dangerous? We aren't playing with fire here, it's just a website. And in any case, supporters don't need to give a reason as it is, so we won't be changing anything here.  Majorly  talk  17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a website? Then why do people bother with DRV? Why with vandalism patrol? Why with FA? DYK? GA? FL? etc? "Just a website" is a tired argument with no standing. Why attempt to use it as a justification? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to show that your use of the word "dangerous" is highly exaggerated. You might not like certain admins, but it's not like they're going to come round to your house and burn it down, or stab you in the street. And while we both care very much about Wikipedia, if it for whatever reason suddenly disappeared, we won't die or anything drastic like that.  Majorly  talk  21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very strong oppose voting is stupid, it allows users to take "revenge" ont hsoe they've had fallouts with in the past and is contrary to the whole wiki system. People should expect their commnets to be questioned.--<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">t /<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">c 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, and people poo-pooed my RfDA idea because they thought it didn't take into account axe-grinders. Turning RfA into a straight vote is a massively, massively bad idea. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Double-wow, I don't mind my idea being shot down (in fact I assumed it would; I don't think anyone will ever change anything), but I didn't know it was that horrible. Everyone always yaps about No Big Deal TM, but then making it really and truly No Big Deal is apparently one step from Armageddon. Moreover, as for voting making it grounds for revenge etc.: wake and smell the coffee. Friends IRC friends now. If one person comes up with a reason for Oppose that smells vaguely legit, all can use it. As many folks have said, RfA is about 75% popularity contest. :-) Butthat's OK. It seems to work at least reasonably well. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfB
I don't believe in thankspam, so I wanted to thank those who participated in my RfB. I did leave an extended closing comment on it if you are interested in reading it.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that your RfB didn't work out. Best of luck in the future, –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I abstained from the RfB itself, but I read your closing statement and I thought it was well said. Good luck for the future. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollbackers who have had the permission involuntarily removed
Wikipedia_talk:Protected_editing_rights - this topic is relevant to proposals that come up on this page to grant permissions "like rollback". Discuss over there. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, my proposal wouldn't be as easy as granting rollback... there would still be a request, a review by a crat, and probably a clerk or two looking a little more closely at candidates. But nothing like we currently have.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed at least one other supporter saying it would be more stringent than rollback. I believe some non-admins could do well with "editprotect" access, but I'll reserve judgment until I see what the process is by which they would be granted this access.  A blank check for any admin to grant the right to any user, which is what we have at WP:PERM, is probably not stringent enough. Crystal whacker (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Updating the archives of this talk page
I was looking through an old discussion at Template talk:RfA and I found a link to a discussion which took place on this page more than a year ago. Thankfully, the archives at that time were organized by date. However, recent archives don't use dates: see /Archives near the bottom. Should I manually add the dates in? It would take 15 minutes, I think; and I'm not sure it's worth the trouble, so I'm asking if people think I should do it.

Also, the archive box at the top has Archives in big bold letters, linking to a how-to page, but the actual link to the archives is a small-font word in the middle of a sentence. Can we change this? I suggest dispensing with the box except to have one single word /Archives in that box, and put the historical note as a header on the archives page index. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes.  Majorly  talk  23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Badgering"
I really dislike how so many editors are accused of badgering, when they're simply trying to engage in a conversation. Any res<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"> ponse to an oppose&mdash;be it polite, stern, long, short, rambling, or brief&mdash;is disregarded as "badgering", or some variant. RfA is a discussion, not a vote, and I'd like to put an end to this trend. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  05:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck trying to change how people work inside their heads :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect some of the feeling of badgering comes from the feeling that if someone opposes either in the form of giving no reason or a bad reason Oppose ~  and Oppose User is male. ~  they will be rightly asked to justify their reasoning. However, it has been my experience the supporting comments are rarely examined in the same level of detail. I would generally expect any Support ~  comment to get a Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? ~  or the Support No Big Deal ~  to get a Why do you think this particular TLA applies to this person's situation? ~ . Requiring all commentors at RFA to give specific and relevant reasoning behind their !votes would be preferable to only hounding one class of !votes or having no clarification of any !votes.  MBisanz  talk 05:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, although it has always seemed to me that if you support, you automatically assert that you agree with the nomination. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  06:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Julian, supporters should not need to give a long reason. What can you write anyway? "Does good work" "Been here a while" "Lots of good article work" - all stuff that is mentioned in the nomination. If you agree with something, you don't explain why, you just do, as it is going with the flow. If you wish to go against the tide and oppose, a reason is not only required, but it's courteous to the candidate and to everyone else.  Majorly  talk  19:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree... while it is perceived as badgering, it is one of the few areas where I think RfA's work. If a bad reason/personal attack/unsubstantiated position is presented the community will speak and point out the fallacy of the reasoning.  If you don't substantiate the rationale, it should be challenged.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 08:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It is called badgering because people aren't analyzing points, they're challenging the Opposing editor(s); seeking to cast doubt on various aspects of their !vote and of the oposers themselves. Challenge is for debate, not discussion. No one should debate (as opposed to discuss) a person's Oppose !vote, ever, period. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 10:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. The very nature of the discussions is "to cast doubt on various aspects of their !vote" if it warrants such; oppose arguments that lack logic, coherence, and reality are and should be called out with prejudice. — kur  ykh   10:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'crat closing the discussion decides on the consensus by what each !vote says, right? So why do we have to comment on all opposes, even plain ridiculous ones? I'm not saying that if you see something against a fairly reasonable oppose, you shouldn't say it, but if we go commenting on every other oppose !vote the only thing it does is lengthen the page. I don't know if I've got something wrong here, if so please feel free to put me right.  C h a m a l  talk 10:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Bureaucrats are irrelevant to this discussion. The end result of the !vote is not relevant to this discussion, and 'crats have made it clear that they will not monitor for badgering. What is relevant is this: it is not a discussion, and not a vote, but a hybrid. But the etiquette of the voting half dictates that I have the right to vote without someone telling me that my Oppose is symptomatic of "what's wrong with RfA"; without anyone calling into question any aspect of my participation in any way. If people want to correct factual errors made in a !vote statement, that's OK. If people want to explore various sides of an issue, that's OK too. But the key point is this (Julian! Are you awake?!): People are addressing the !voters rather than the issues. They are questioning the voters'... everything. They are turning the voters into the issue being discussed. This makes voters feel challenged/threatened/insulted etc. And this is wrong. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Opposing an RfA is a big deal. I can say from experience that in an RfA, an oppose amongst a sea of supports is stressful. Thus, oppose !votes should provide as much solid and convincing evidence as possible, and if it is viewed as insufficient, it seems reasonable to me to question that vote by engaging in discussion. Then many opposers become too sensitive, and dismiss any attempt at discussion. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  15:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If one oppose in a sea of supports stresses you out, you probably shouldn't become an admin. Giggy (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, throwing in an oppose into a sea of supports can be stressful, especially when the candidate's friends and relations come over and start to pick you apart. I'm not sure it is entirely possible to raise that comfort level without turning this into a vote, but it can really suck when they come over and call you an idiot (more politely, of course) or a hypocrite or hypersensitive.  I guess it comes with the territory.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ling.Nut is taking this way too personally to be in a position to be analysing it fairly. "They are questioning the voters'... everything" - no they aren't, they're questioning their vote reasoning. It's not difficult to understand. It's nothing personal.  Majorly  talk  19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Image is relevant to thread. Sceptre (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is allowed, and should be encouraged. If someone makes a rubbish or unfair oppose, people have every right to question it (badgering is such a horrible word, and is used far too liberally round here). Opposes are worth 4 supports, and it is the opposes that fail RFAs. People don't have to oppose, they choose to. If they take the time to oppose, they can take the time to answer questions about their oppose, if someone thinks it has poor reasoning or is irrelevant. Bureaucrats should be the ones doing this, but it usually ends up being me. Perhaps one of the most irritating things an opposer can say in response to a polite question is "Stop badgering me!" It annoyed me so much, I even made a lolbadger out of it. I think the word "badgering" should be banned from RFAs, and opposers should accept that if their reasoning is crappy they will get people questioning them, and rightly so. Whenever I oppose, I always accept that someone may not agree, and am prepared to discuss. I never resort to "stop badgering me!". Saying that just sounds like you've lost the argument and can't say anything else. If you're going to oppose someone, pull your finger out and do it properly. There are a lot of people who oppose frequently, and I never have an issue with their comments, because they're fair and about the candidate. There are others that, well, you get the idea.  Majorly  talk  16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a side note, correct me if my math is wrong, but doesn't it only take three supports to counteract an oppose? Useight (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Only for the discretionary range. --Izno (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Supports and opposes are equally fair game. If someone isn't willing to put in the effort to come up with a strong point and then complains when they are questioned, then they probably shouldn't be at RfA. Its a discussion towards consensus after all. I don't like the voting ideas (which is connected to the "no big deal" in a bad way). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A support is looked at less stringently as a holdover from the No Big DealTM era. People are assumed to be agreeing with the nom (and hence support) unless they have objections to the nom and, in turn, the candidate. — kur  ykh   00:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose when someone supports without giving a reason they are implicitly agreeing with the nominator, but what about self-noms? Can we really extract from Support ~ that the person agrees with the candidate that they have the judgment require for RFA? Or what about when someone supports with a reason that makes no sense?  I've seen at least a couple of "Support because the opposes are stupid" style reasons given in my day.  I see Giggy has tested my suggestion and yes I am among the number who offered poor rationales for my support.  In going over the candidate a second time to offer something more substantive I realize now that I strongly support the candidate after seeing details of their editing I missed the first time, and I intend to amend my comment accordingly.  MBisanz  talk 00:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult to imagine so much reasonable-sounding rubbish all conveniently stored in one location. people are actively insulting others, implying tht their Opposes are stupid, sick, wrong, bad for Wikipedia, etc etc etc. It is petty sadbox poop-throwing disguised as civil and sane discussion. The folks who defend it are often those doing it. ;-) I saw someone say an Oppose without reason could be stricken. Offensive and insulting, condescending, self-centered crap! And crap! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it ironic that opposing a nominee might become as stressful as being the nominee. You think you're being badgered for your oppose? How do you think the candidate feels. No wonder Eco lost it. (and no I'm not excusing his "meatspacing" of one of the opposers) He withdrew his previous RFA which had an outside chance of passing and Giggy's (as DHMO) last RFA would have passed if left open. These nominees got tired of being "badgered". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate you think that. And opposes without reasons are as good as stricken anyway, because bureaucrats ignore them :) I think you take this far too personally. It's just an RFA. Good grief! :)  Majorly  talk  12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone comments on RfA they should expect and accept that people will comment and try to change their view. If they couldn't RfA would be a pathetic revenge and flame process. Ling.nut I've never seen anything like you've described at RfA recently, though some historical RfAs I've looked through have basically been bully-the-opposer type RFAs. IMO any editor who makes a comment like this sould be immediatly blocked for 12-18 hours. Of coruse we oculd never implement anything like becuase of the subjectivity of "incivility". A pity.--<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">t /<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">c 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought on this matter is that support !votes are fundamentally different that oppose !votes on RfA. A nomination is a prima facie argument as to why a candidate should be an administrator.  The noms are so much more detailed now than they used to be.  I personally believe it is perfectly reasonable for someone to support an RfA without comment under the assumption that it is an acceptance of what is put forth in the nomination (even if it is a self-nomination).  On the other hand, an oppose comment requires a reason providing information aside from the nomination as to why the user thinks the candidate should not be adminned.  It is perfectly reasonable to question a rationale either way on RfA.  What bothers me is the current trend to put down "give me a reason" on multiple support-the-nom !votes -- that is not conducive to promoting discussion and borders on being disruptive. -- Samir 05:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that when a participant votes to support without giving an explanation, this should be read as incorporating the rationale of the nomination. I would frankly like to see all oppose votes, on the other hand, start with the phrase, "The candidate can not be trusted with the tools because..." bd2412  T 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it get pretty boring though, to keep seeing the same oppose?
 * Oppose. The candidate can not be trusted with the tools because I don't like them.
 * --Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

With all of these proposals
We have a lot of proposals flying around lately. What about having a trial RfA for these proposals (like Ironhold's second RfA when the questions, then voting proposal was made)?  iMatthew //  talk  //  take my poll // 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because every trial RFA we've ever had has ended in a spectacular fireball, so no-one will want to take the risk? Yes, I know "didn't work before" is a recipe for stagnation, but sometimes the status quo exists for good reason. – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent  22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but some of the proposals are for de-adminship. I can understand not everyone wanting to take that particular plunge, though I've publicly stated that I'd be willing to submit to the first RfDA that is done via the process I outlined above. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with your volunteering, is that it wouldn't be a true test. It would be like giving an A student a basic aptitude test to see if it worked.  A true test for RfDA would only work on an unwilling subject.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or a willing borderline candidate. Skomorokh  22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I could roguely rename Jimbo to something like "Sugartits McGee", that way there'd be a bit better chance of me getting de-sysopped. That work for everyone? ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

because this is Wikipedia, and we've finally reached the point wherein our size is becoming a detriment. Democracies don't work on a large scale. Once to get too big, it becomes virtually impossible to garner a consensus to get change. Everybody may agree change is needed, but to what?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not absolutely the case. BLP, Geobot and autoconfirmation spring to mind as significant changes enacted when the metapedian collective was at its current scope. The key seems to be the activism of a dedicated cadre of devoted initiates (in exopedian we call these "pov-pushers") willing to ram proposals with ambivalent levels of support through. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. In this context, the route to progress would be
 * Establish consensus for the principle that adminship is contingent on continued editorial support and that editors have the authority to revoke it if they collectively choose to do so
 * Gain agreement from the bureaucrats to adjudicate community desysop hearings (ought not to be a difficult sell considering WP:CON)
 * Set up a process page and start with a few easy targets likely candidates.
 * The advantage of new processes over policies is that processes need not go through a difficult essay-proposed-guideline-policy gamut, merely survive MfD's and have the collusion of the technically endowed (in this case bureaucrats). Realpolitikly yours, Skomorokh  23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After my RfB, I feel like I might be an easy target ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh. Nevermind then.  iMatthew //  talk  //  take my poll // 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We do not need to change this process. It's worked well since 2003, and it has barely changed in its format. We've created nearly 1500 admins through the process. I don't consider that bit broken. That people are more suspicious today, and wish to be able to remove rights if necessary is another thing altogether. A separate process needs using for that. Not like DRV, because problems come after the RFA, even if it successful without a single oppose. Many of our worst admins passed RFA with 90+ percent support. What is needed, and has been suggested above, is a deadminship process. And guess what? We have one. It's called the dispute resolution process. If you're unhappy with an admin, take them to RFC, and then ArbCom if necessary. We don't need anything else. If an admin is bad enough, they will eventually be removed. A "RfDa" process will not work in my mind. There are proper ways to go about it, let's use them first, before making a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.  Majorly  talk  23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Majorly, did you just agree with me again? – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent  23:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it works. Unless of course said admin is an arbitrator. Oops! -- Gurch (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think there's more upside than downside to occasionally testing innovations. We learn from the experience even if it fails, and if it works then we can implement it. I don't think the current RfA process is broken, but there's no question that there's room for improvement. We've done more talking than testing; why not be bolder? Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the suggestion of testing. If my RfA did nothing then it at least did something; it killed the idea that that process is workable. We accept there is room for improvement, so lets try things out; even if the only result is to show that a particular idea is not feasible it is at least a result. Ironholds (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of reforming RFA?
Up until maybe a year or so ago, I thought we really needed RFA reform, but now I'm not so sure. The issue, to me, was that from the time I joined Wikipedia until late 2007, there was a shortage of admins - admin backlogs were lengthy and it took a day to get anything deleted at CSD. (Literally, before I was an admin, there were several times I noticed it was over 24 hours.) But now, we almost trip over ourselves. CAT:CSD rarely has more than 50 or so pages. Most of the image deletion categories are cleared before the five day clock actually runs out. If anything, I think now we can afford to be more strict, not less. --B (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should any editor be judged differently now than a year ago just because the workload has changed (but nothing else)? And I don't even think it has, CAT:AB still has a bunch of entries, CAT:CSD has still around 100 entries (and I remember 500+ just 2 months ago), WP:RFPP has still requests unanswered for hours etc. But even if it has changed, that's no reason to be more strict. If an editor has the trust of the community, then we should give him the tools, no matter how much work there is to do for him/her.  So Why  08:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The long-term trend is that new admins are just barely replacing those who retire or become inactive, and if the trend continues there may be a real problem down the road. The other problem which "RFA reform" seeks to address is that, even if RFA is passing exactly those candidates it ought to pass, and failing all the others, people find it stressful, confrontational, or otherwise problematic to participate. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good place for me to mention my question about DEAL that I posted here yesterday. I'm not trying to be obnoxious or open a can of worms that isn't already open, but I don't think the current wording of WP:NBD meshes with the reality of the process, and before major changes to RfA are undertaken, it might be a good idea for the community to clarify how time-consuming and complex RfA should be per the community and policy. Townlake (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The big problem with RfA, is that there isn't a simple means to desysop somebody. If I were to redesign Adminship, I would truly make it no big deal.  But in order to do so, you would need to make it easier to move in and out of similar to Rollbacker.  Eg 1) I would do away with the current system.  Have people appeal to the 'crats for adminship and have the 'crats review candidates for the tools.  This could be done similar to CHU/USURP where "clerks" help out with that review---but stress the theory that unless there is something flagarant, that the presupposition should be to promote an admin.  This would make it relatively painfree to become an admin.  No nomination statement, no questions to answer, no interigation, just a simple request.  Quick review for obvious problems, and voila! Insta-admin. 2) BUT in order for this to fly, you need to have a mechanism to readily get rid of admins.  This means implementing a simple system to desysop somebody.  Desysopping should be quick and easy.  Perhaps a request made, rebuttal, comments by clerks and done by a crat.  3) RE-SYSOPing should then be no big deal for most people---at least the first 2 or 3 times.  The only time we invoke a traditional RfA, is rare and only if the person has a history.  4) This would require more 'crats.  If being a sysop truly is NBD, then giving AND removing the bit should be painless.  IF, however, we have to fight tooth and nail for the bit... OR we have to fight tooth and nail to remove the bit, then it becomes a big deal.
 * Let me throw Malleus under the bus. I like Malleus and think he can do a lot of good for the project.  He will NEVER pass an RfA, because he can be an Ass. Do I think he would ever abuse the tools if given them?  Probably not.  Under the current system, would he get the bit?  No, because people wouldn't want him to have them because they just aren't 100% sure that he wouldn't get pissed at somebody and block them.  Make it easy to take the tools away from him, then it becomes real easy to see how he behaves with them.  He may continue to be an Ass, but demonstrates that he knows not to use the tools to unblock himself when he gets blocked or not to block somebody else when he gets into it with them.
 * If we truly want RfA to be NBD, then we need BOTH pieces of the puzzle to be as painfree as possible. If either the sysopping or desysopping of people is painful (AND permanent) then it will be a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)
 * Finally, a bright ray of sanity through the dark clouds of obfuscation. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #801818;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's incredibly difficult to get adminship, and I don't believe a rollback kind of system would work well because it's too easy to get rollback (I'm thinking sockpuppets here). Why should it be easy to remove? And yet again... I hear talk of so-called admin abuse but have yet to see any kind of abuse desysop worthy. If someone really is a problem admin, use the current processes. That's RFC, and if necessary, ArbCom. It took just over a month, from promotion to demotion, for Archtransit to be removed. I don't consider that a long time in the grand scheme of things. I'm seriously wondering what the problem is here. To use me as an example, there was an RFC on me, which eventually lead to my resigning. No deadmin process was needed apart from the existing one. If there is a problem, use what we have, we don't need anything else.  Majorly  talk  17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not as certain Balloonman's proposal would work that well. To use his example, Malleus, currently under the bus.  Permit me to start the motor and drive back and forth a bit.  The !voters that wouldn't support Malleus because they are afraid of what he will do with the bit are still not going to support him because of personal dislike (personally, Malleus seems like a fine editor to me, given our limited interaction).  The same goes for any editor in a similar situation.  Because the mindset of Wikipedians is that adminship IS a big deal, and they are not gonna want to dole it out to someone they don't like.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it would either, I'm just throwing it out there, because I think that we need both the sysopping AND desysopping of people to be easier. If one is Big Deal, then the whole thing is a big deal.  But that is the key, if we really want Adminship to be NBD (and I have no problem with that aspiration) we have to change mindsets.  If you presented me with a solid contributor, but a history like Malleus, I would be the first to oppose.  Give me the same contributor, but also give me the assurance that if it doesn't work out, then we can remove the bit, then it changes the frame work.  Giving the bit provisionally, is NBD, giving it to them permanently is.  Maybe Malleus isn't the best example, but how often do we see people opposed that are "good people" but lack experience.  Or we have a few reservations.  If we could give them the bit, knowing that it could be removed if things don't work out, adminship is NBD.  If we have to fight to get the keys away, then it is BD.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If becoming an admin is truly NBD, then losing the bit should also be NBD. IF one is easy and the other is a big deal, then the whole thing is a big deal. Make both of them easy, and it become NBD. As for you Majorly, what you went through before losing the bit was brutal.  It was a nightmare and I wouldn't want to wish that on my worse enemy.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but how does the mindset of Wikipedians that adminship is a big deal get altered? Is it possible to?  Until you change that, then I don't see how you can do the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is where I think the desysopping process comes in. My recent RfB proves that I am the reason everything is wrong at RfA ;-)  I recently opposed a candidate, but indicated that I thought he was good guy and had a great attitude.  My oppose was cited by over half of the other people who opposed.  Now what would have happened if somebody had come to me and said, "Balloonman, you agree that he is a great guy, but you are opposing because of a lack of experience.  Why don't we give him the bit and see how he does?  If he blows it, we can easily take it away."  Suddenly, my rationale to oppose is wiped out and everybody who cited me has the legs knocked out from under them.  Now, if the proposal is for a 3 month trial period or the desysopping process is worse than the RfA process, then the rationale remains.  A 3 month trial period has been rejected because people are afraid of somebody flying under the radar for 3 months (like they did to get the bit in the first place.)  A tough RfDA won't work because people won't have faith in that.  Make it easy to move in and out of, then being a sysop is no big deal.  And I mean in and out of, if people see being desysopped as permanent, then they will fight it (and yes, there will be cases which will still go through RfC/ArbCom to permanently remove the bit.)  This would also add some teeth to ANI---an admin commits abuse, right now, it's rally around the admin.  Make it easy to say, "hey you abused your tools, we're going to take them away for a week."  Then it becomes no big deal---and a means to actually regulate admins! Let me give you another example, I have seen admins talk about how they've thought about giving up the bit, but they don't want to just in case.  They know that in theory they could just ask to get it back, but they don't trust the system, because it is a big deal.  Set up a simple system like this, and then it isn't a big deal.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know WP and WPeans much better than I do, but it still looks to me like that cart is sitting squrely in front of the horse, and that we'd need an attitude change to change the RFA process, not an RFA process change to change attitudes--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * huh??? I have no idea of what you are trying to say, let alone how to respond to it?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I had to look at the edit history because when I re-read the above comment, it made perfect sense... glad to see that you redacted it, and that I was not loosing my mind.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wehwalt. This is why I'm asking for clarification of NBD. Townlake (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Process changes often lead to changes in attitudes. Process changes are at the core of almost every self help book and many psychiatric treatments.  You don't excercise?  Force yourself to get off your but for 20 minutes a day, and after a few weeks, it'll become second nature.  Overweight?  Start eating the right foods, and you'll stop craving that candy bar.  Having trouble with your finances, write out a budget and stick to it.  Have trouble talking to people of the opposite sex/race/religion/political party, make an effort to do so.  Have a fear of going outdoors, create a process that lets you overcome that fear.  Suffer from anxiety attacks?  Create a process that helps you deal with it.  These are all process changes that lead to attitude changes.  In the US, we now have a black president, this would not have happened if civil rights leaders simply said, "Well, let's wait until the attitudes change, then the process will improve."  No, they said, "This is where we want to be, thus we need to make changes today, the attitude will follow."  Changing processes are easier than changing attitudes.  A change in process forces a review of the attitude in everybody.  A change in attitude occurs one person at a time.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So if they see administrators easily defrocked, the idea that admin is no big deal will follow? Possibly among those dozens of people who breathlessly follow every move made at an RfA.  For the great unwashed, not so sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you make it both easier to get and to loose the bit. If changes are only made on one side, then it won't have any effect.  If you make it NBD to get the bit and NBD to lose the bit, then having the bit is NBD.  When Rollbacker was first introduced people were concerned about it, now it is NBD--because everybody has it or can have it relatively easily.  When the process to get/lose something is a big deal, then that item by default is a big deal.  Owning a computer used to be a big deal, now it seems as if everybody has one.  Owning a car used to be a big deal, now the average American family has more cars than it has legal drivers!  Take Adminship off of the pedalstal, and then it won't be a big deal.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another simplified RFA proposal
--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Every RFA should be a self-nomination. Not only do nominators tend to become cheerleaders/badgerers they increase the tendency toward cliquishness by nominating people like them. If nominators want to say how good the candidate is, they can say it in their support !vote.
 * The candidate should make a statement that explains why he/she wants to be an admin; points out highlights of his/her career(?) at wikipedia; and reveals any skeletons that he/she considers worth revealing.
 * There should be no questions. A !voter can ask questions as a part of their vote and include clear diffs to support their vote or question so I don't see much point in burdening someone with tons of questions at the top of the RFA.
 * I'd add to that, "only !votes and the rationale for them (by the !voter) may be placed in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. Editors are free to discuss !votes in the discussion section, or on the nomination's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing about reducing debate at RFA is that you turn it into more of a vote, and I don't believe that that either fits with our ethos or suits the level of knowledge about the candidate that the typical RFA voter has. Also making the debate one-sided by not allowing the candidate to respond to voting statements would IMHO make the thing even worse than it is now.  Were <font color="FFA500">Spiel <font color="FFC0CB">Chequers  18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that the candidate responds only to questions or rationale in the votes. And only the candidate responds - others can chip in in the discussion section. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, let the candidate respond. Everyone else, take it outside.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is a community discussion. This proposal would make this essentially a one-on-many simultaneous interview, sort of like a committee hearing.  I'm not sure we want to get that formal.  Also, the "only self-nominations" thing has been discussed to death before, not too long ago, either.  Others have proposed the opposite, that no self-noms be allowed.  That died, too.--Aervanath (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A pointy RfA proposal

 * Every RfA candidate should have to mount a daring commando raid on the WMF headquarters dressed up as a political figure - that will prove their commitment to the role. A complementary de-sysop process would have editors seek removal of sysop rights by following a series of clues, each more fiendish than the last, only achieving the desysop by finding the jade monkey before the full moon.
 * I guess my point is that, no matter how many of these proposals get put forward, none of them seem to go anywhere. Gazimoff's Review has stalled. Perhaps this energy and enthusiasm for reform would be best served by helping out on the Collate stage of the review, since there are endless permutations (including mine) that people almost certainly won't agree to?  Fritzpoll (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gazimoff's review stalled because the guy doing a whole lot of it, UltraExactZZ, hasn't been around in over a month. I emailed him requesting the data he had from the Collate phase, but haven't heard back yet.  I'll see if I can restart work from scratch myself this weekend.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also aware that I should essentially invoke WP:SOFIXIT against myself, but I have neither time nor energy for the exercise at the moment. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on. A daring commando raid? Now we're talking. Useight (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how about the criteria for B'crat hopefuls? A Mossad mission? - Mailer Diablo 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)