Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 87

RfA
Minor proposal: Wouldn't it make sense to update the RfA template with something like ? I often just forget to update it when I vote, that's why. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't vote :-). Matthew 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The tally is not so important it needs to be updated every time. If someone remembers, that's fine, if they don't, it doesn't matter.  Majorly  (o rly?) 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I deliberately don't update the tally as I don't approve of it being a numbers game. MLA 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not that important, but it's only a minor change to the template, either. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's been discussed before, but I'd support removing the tally entirely. Anyone who is interested in raw counts can look at the numbered !votes or one of the RfA bots. I don't care much if the tally stays, but it's not essential that it gets updated after every vote. ChazBeckett 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this, once again. The tally is counterproductive to discerning consensus, and makes it more of a numbers game. -- nae'blis 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The tally is harmless, the tally is of little importance. I think it is fine as is, people can update it, or not. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Where is this coming from? I never updated the tally because nobody asked me to, and I don't see any reason to start. My opinion is all that I can offer to the RFA process. I leave the rest for other to handle. YechielMan 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I update them where I see they're wrong but then again, I'm a bit of a WikiGnome. It's not important, really and I feel that as it's the first thing people see when they look at an RfA/RfB folks will get swayed by the tally alone. It's been shown that people tend to vote with the trend - Alison ☺ 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alison can apparently hear and type out my thoughts before I have them. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People vote with the trend? NO WAI. Picaroon 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, zap the numbers. Xiner (talk, a promise) 13:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So is there significant opposition to getting rid of the tally? And do the proponents want to see this through? Xiner (talk, a promise) 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to removing the tally, partly on the grounds of overkill (we still have the numbered sections and WP:BN). I don't think it will solve RfA's problems, though, and I still think that RfA is currently a vote (whether that's desirable or not is debatable). --ais523 16:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having just succeeded at RfA, with a better than average vote (or !vote) I would have no objection to the removal of the tally. We do not want people who see a high score, either for or against, and pile on. And I am sure it happens. If they won't look at the answers or the edit count, at least make them read the comments.--Anthony.bradbury 16:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove the tally. I'd also like the bots to stop listing and evaluating percentages.  Percentages can be easily skewed.  We need to encourage 'crats to make more judgment calls and not to treat the discussion as a vote. --Sam uel Wan t man 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though an RFA is supposed to be a discussion to attain concensus it is a vote. Yes the comments are read and come into consideration, but when one of the criteria for 'crats to accept (most of the time) is 75% then it can only be called a vote. If you want to stop calling it a vote or the more pc !vote, in line with the question above, you'd also remove the numbering, the sections, and the bolding of support/oppose and neutrals. Khu kri  18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely a vote. There is still the "discussion" section.  Wanna start a trend and actually use it?  I tried in RockMFR's RfA, but only got one comment from an anon.  :-(  Apparently I'm unpopular.  --Iamunknown 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nay, not unpopular, merely unknown. Grace notes T  § 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True true. --Iamunknown 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're discussing just the tally on the top of the page. The tallies are still easily attainable where people vote, and on WP:BN. Xiner (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the best system that we have now, unless everyone is ready for major reform, is for the community to make the numbers, and for the crats to decide what they mean, based upon the content of the comments. Grace notes T  § 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And the numbers as well. Okay, it's complicated. Grace notes T  § 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the crats to decide what they mean, based upon the content of the comments Oh glorious day would that be!  --Iamunknown 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry t'was just in response to the vote or !vote that's appearing. Adding a note won't do any harm and I'm not against it. But IMHO it's just a side question, and the main question looking at some of the comments above should as to whether we have tally system at all or removing completely the +/- way of accounting/voting whether a candidate is fit for the job. Those who say they aren't voting, are by the fact they put their moniker under the heading they agree with, instead of as Iamunknown suggests using the discussion. But personally I don't mind tally's, votes or the note suggested above.  Khu  kri  19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see having a tally as harmless. --Deskana (ya rly)  19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll cite WP:NOHARM here, in the stead of another that might forget that it applies only to articles . I agree with Deskana, however. Having a tally doesn't make it anymore number-centric than does using # instead of *.  Grace notes T  § 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We could delistify it and de-segregate the votes, have a full-on brawl *ahem* discussion and then have the crat read it all. --Iamunknown 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who say they aren't voting, are by the fact they put their moniker under the heading they agree with, instead of as Iamunknown suggests using the discussion. - this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of polling. If it were a vote, we would strike all Strong/Weak/Superunknownwithacherryontop qualifiers and refactor all comments into the discussion section aggressively. Voting implies binary or concrete choices; polling, instead, takes into account nuances of opinion and tries to form a consensus. Just because Wikipedia usually fails to achieve true consensus does not mean that Wikipedia's version is the same thing as a vote. Never forget that the 75% 'criterion' is a guideline, not a stone tablet. -- nae'blis 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And we've all seen what happens when amongst other things that guideline's not followed. If we were interested in nuances then I don't believe we need the neon bold signs before every comment. Please don't mistake what I'm saying, I do believe that the comments are taken into account, but we do have concrete choices, of oppose, support and neutral and anything else behind that is just a clarification and reasoning for holding that belief. Khu  kri  21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "And we've all seen what happens when amongst other things that guideline's not followed." ...maybe we should delist it to an essay? I wish. A good solution to all of this seems to be encouraging the use of the discussion section, but most people are so used to the way RFA is, they find it much easier to lazily type out a bullet, a couple of apostrophes here and there, throw in "per" for good measure, etc. Does anyone else think that RFA should really be a discussion between a candidate and the community, instead of what it currently is? Grace notes T  § 21:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so, Gracenotes. --Iamunknown 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood; I would prefer WP:DFA or some other more-discussion-based method myself, but until such time, I'll settle for dropping the tally as an anomaly. -- nae'blis 22:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out (again) that >99% of all RFAs in the last year were sacrificed on that stone tablet. Only 3 RFAs passed while having less than 75% support and only 2 failed while having greater than 75% support.  Consequently the 75% threshold is a fantastically accurate predictor of RFA outcomes.  Whether RFAs ought to be so strongly tied to a particular threshold is of course a matter of opinion, but the reality is that the outcome of the current process is very much a de facto vote.  Dragons flight 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave it the way it is. The tally gives 'crats a quick overview of the discussion. If there are a lot of oppose (or even neutral) !votes, then they will know to more closely scrutinize the discussion as there are obviously a number of people with concerns. I think it's an important tool, though definitely not the only tool, for beginning to gauge the opinion flow of a discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The tally is often outdated, as it appears I'm not the only one forgetting it. The votes are numbered and there's bots keeping an eye on the discussions too. The tally adds little that we don't already get in other ways and it's considerably harder to maintain. It wouldn't hurt to throw out the tally. As long as people spend some time providing reason for their votes, it will be less evil than the non-reasoned blank votes you see in for example presidential elections. - Mgm|(talk) 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave tallies in. The people that like them will keep them in sync, the people that don't care don't need to.  The tallies do serve to highlight potentially borderline RfAs, and makes it more obvious that a closer look by others might benefit the process.  It may be that the editor is controversial, and reviewers without other motivations are needed.  And that's a really great benefit.  Shenme 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the second part of that comment is an interesting point. Xiner (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've thought about this - is it possible, however, that the inconvenience these "contentious RfA" seekers will experience from the removal of the tally on the top - they just have to scroll the page to see the up-to-date tally - is outweighed by the decreased temptation to pile on the votes? Xiner (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone is looking for RfAs that are "potentially borderline" by percentages, a bot-generated page such as User:Dragons flight/RFA summary is far more useful than a manual tally. Having a tally at the top of every RfA gives the impression that it's one of the most important features. If it's going to be on the page, why not move it from the top of the page to above the support section? ChazBeckett 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People tried moving it down there once before, it was objected to and moved back up top. -- nae'blis 22:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am for getting rid of the tallies. As already been said, many people look at those first before voting and many times I'm sure it helps sway their opinion one way or another. Before they've made of their mind on a candidate, they see that many others are for/against the candidate and it can immediately shift their focus one way or another before they even look at the candidate themselves. If somebody really wants to see the tally, they can go to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and look.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 21:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What you mention is a valid issue. However, if we only take care of the issue partially and on the surface (by getting rid of the tally), it would just be better to keep the tally there. Grace notes T  § 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think any substantial change to the process will have consensus at this point, but it could be interesting to see what this small change might bring. Xiner (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the tally is removed, I think it should be added back as a final tally when the RfA is closed, as WP:BN only tallies current RfAs. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihon joe 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * People interested in a tally should have an automated one rather than adding "update it" to the instructions.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify it's not a vote --Kim Bruning 11:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:GRFA indicates that it's not a vote. If only that weren't a joke... Grace notes T  § 14:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Copletely off topic with the updating but what does:
 * Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. 

translate to? I am assuming it is Latin. Simply south 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is rather random, to say the least, unless you are making a statement that the above conversation is as incomprehensible as the Latin text. Check out the Wikipedia article Lorem ipsum or this column at straightdope.com.  --Iamunknown 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am not sure it is not related that much to the above discussion, it does appear in the template. That is why i am asking it here. Simply south 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I see the connexion. --Iamunknown 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucratic Take of the Throne
Could a Bureaucrat use his/her bureaucratic powers to take away bureaucratic rights from all the rest of the bureaucrats and, henceforth, rule Wikipedia? TomasBat 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Bureaucrats can not remove sysop or bureaucrat rights, only add them. To remove such rights you need a Steward.  Dragons flight 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they cannot. Yes, only stewards can reverse user rights here.  Majorly  (o rly?) 16:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki rights were designed to prevent this sort of takeover from happening. All actions are reversable, other than Oversight, which I don't know much about anyway. PTO 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oversight is reversable by developers I believe.  Majorly  (o rly?) 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can anyone reverse the developers? (ie. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.) · AO <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And if someone could, would you ask if anyone could reverse them? I'm really not worried. --Deskana (ya rly)  00:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The foundation can refuse them access to their toys. Does that count? :-) --Kim Bruning 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I am not wholly familiar with the technical aspect, I believe that certain developers can access and reverse any such removal of information, logs, etc. by other developers, and can also restore an oversighted revision, although I do not know if either of those situations have ever happened before. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's different levels of access to the servers, just like with any other computer. There's developers with SVN access only, there's those with shell access, and those who have root access. Of course, that's a simplification, but it also reflects that there's stratification there, as recommended by the principle of least privilege. Of course, the senior developers could go insane, but if they do, they lose their salaries. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Salaries? Isn´t Wikipedia a non-profit foundation? TomasBat 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that does not mean that everyone works for free. It only means that Wikipedia as an entity is not out to make a profit.  The same is true of the American Red Cross and many churches.  Please see non profit organization. Johntex\talk 01:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) It is, or at least the Wikimedia Foundation, its parent organization, is. However, even non-profit organizations still have paid staff, and the Foundation is not an exception. What is unusual, though, is the extremely small number of employees of the Foundation - there are currently less than ten. (See foundation:Current staff for more information.) Of these ten include several paid technical staff with developer access, including Brion Vibber, our Chief Technical Officer, and Tim Starling, a developer and contractor with the Foundation. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which brings up an interesting point - since there are so few people "at the top levels" (combining Stewards, Developers, Foundation trustees), an oligarchy could form and take over. Perhaps it has already? Johntex\talk 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For knowledge on bureaucrats, go here. Captain   panda  22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At some point, any person participating in an opensource project has two rights which no one can usurp-the right to start a fork elsewhere if you think you can do better, and the right to walk out the door if you feel your time should no longer be contributed. If enough people exercise these rights, the fork succeeds or the project dies. It's no different here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that could be really damaging... I really thing we should pare those rights back to admins. Maybe even 'crats... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've thought about that too....a couple dozen people could be granted bureaucrat rights by a bureaucrat, and in turn they grant rights to more editors, until so many illigitamate crats exist that wikipedia has to be temporarily shut down to reset user rights. </BEANS> The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that the time taken to get an emergency desysopping/debureaucratting is small enough for that to be almost impossible. There's also Special:Log/rights, which stewards can use to revert promotions. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so bureaucrats cannot do so because they cannot demote users; but then... ¿Couldn´t a steward do so and take absolute control? TomasBat 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, developers can still manually remove steward access. PTO 00:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I predict the next question: the answer is, no, developers couldn't take over.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for answering in advance... But, ¿How? ¿Why can´t developers take over? TomasBat 00:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They can't. People with Jimbo access level can de-developer them. :) (Just kidding) --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once you start getting to developer access, the people get more and more dedicated to the project, i.e. they want to make sure it goes as far as possible so that their years of working on it haven't gone to waste. That said, it's not impossible for a developer to go postal, but just that they wouldn't. We have had some developers go beserk before with their desysopping powers (I'm referring to the Ed Poor incident, but I can't find any signpost/arbitration documentation), but that's the biggest incident we've ever had with them. PTO 01:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of dictators probably appear very dedicated - right until they line everyone else up against the wall. Johntex\talk 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What the fuck? -- Cyde Weys  01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, Cyde. PTO 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comparing developers to dictators who execute people they don't like is both counter-factual and very rude indeed. --Tony Sidaway 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies. I did not mean for it to be a serious comparison.  I certainly don't think our developers are like dictators in any way.  I just meant to disagree with the previous assertion.  How dedicated someone appears to be is not necesarily a predictor of how they may behave in the future.  To the contrary, over-dedication could be indistinguishable from fanaticism.  In short, I don't think "dedication" by itself is a safe-guard. Johntex\talk 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling TomisBat is just arguing here, rather than trying to discuss something. --Deskana (ya rly)  01:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I´m just concerned (and somewhat worried) about the future of Wikipedia, and about possible systematic errors within the "Wikipedian Society"; I just want to make sure that Wikipedia isn´t in danger of being controlled in dark ways... TomasBat 01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a legitimate worry. Ultimately the content is free so we could fork if this happened.  But the community would be very seriously damaged.  However I personally don't think such problems would manifest as administrative take-overs of some kind.  I'd expect such obviously disruptive activities to be dealt with promptly and without serious problems. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Are stewarts elected? Also, how do develpers, oversights and check-users flourish? Are they also elected or what? TomasBat 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oversight and checkuser is granted by arbcom. --Deskana (ya rly)  02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stewarts were not elected, and have been taken over by Tescos. Stewards are elected. Warofdreams talk 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And developer? TomasBat02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is that important? --Deskana (ya rly)  02:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wanna know... ♠  TomasBat   ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * TomasBat, if you have any more questions, you can start at Administrators and work through the links. Picaroon 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * TomasBat, you seem to be trying to solve a nonexistant problem. We don't need to set up more checks and balances in the Wikipedia governing system to make it safer. Even if your coup d'état happens, so many people would leave Wikipedia in disgust (it's surprising how many did over the Essjay controversy) that it could not run and the takeover would only gain a collapsing organization. Captain   panda  03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats why im concerned.. Take-over happens, Wikipedia collapses (like you said), and our efforts are ruined... Of course, this may seem quite exaggerated, but I think that it would be quite possible... ♠  TomasBat   ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything is possible, However, I think the odds of this "take-over" scenario actually happening are so infinitesimally small as to be negligible. On top of that, it would be an issue for the Foundation to deal with as we (meaning administrators, bureaucrats, and Arbitration Committee) have no direct control over the developers, board members or stewards. Any discussion here of possibilities such as this are pure speculation, and I believe inappropriate for this particular forum. I suggest using the links already provided above for finding and contacting those with the foundation as they are the only ones who should offer any kind of official response to this scenario (as that's what it seems you (speaking to TomasBat) are seeking). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The possibility of an asteroid crashing onto the server farm is probably higher than the possibility of a takeover occurring. And no, there are no asteroids en route to the servers. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure... · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are following the same logic as the previous comments, you have no idea how Wikipedia works. Start reading about it if you care to know. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

RfB nominations
I know the stats are out there, I'm just not sure where to find them. Without having to go through the edit history of this page, who have been the most recent RfB cantidates?

Also, ignoring the details of any specific cantidate, how likely do we feel that a cantidate may be promoted to bureaucrat currently?

I have a "short list" of People I think I would like to nominate for Bureaucrat, but I'm trying to decide if nominating them would be a "positive" thing.

Thanks in advance for your help/thoughts/comments : ) - jc37 04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are links to the successful and unsuccessful RfBs at the top of the RfA page. The successful ones are listed chronologically.  The unsuccessful by alphabetic order, but they have the date of the RfB listed.  You'd have to wade through the list and sort it. -- Gogo Dodo 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Majorly and Nihonjoe were the people who were closest to passing this year, but no one has gotten more than 75% support since last September. Dekimasu よ! 05:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I've never taken part in an RfB, I do believe the general rule is to self-nominate for Bureaucrat. Perhaps you could encourage those people to nominate themselves? Lollipop Lady 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in Wikipedia's old days, there have been RfB without self nomination or I don't recall right?  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  11:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about this too. I'm quite sure that used to be the rule, although after a cursory scan of the current page it no longer seems to be stated. (Let me be clear: I came here to check the current position, not stating a personal opinion as to whether RFB should be self-nom only or not :)) --kingboyk 13:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Cla68
Substantial information has been added within a few hours of the closing time. I have thus extended the nomination for 24 hours from the original closing time. Please investigate the relevant information and leave informed opinions about the candidate's suitability to be an admin. Thank you. - Taxman Talk 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, a b'crat canvassing. That's fair. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Canvassing. User:Taxman's message here comes nowhere near close to canvasing. Gwernol 09:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely a strange comment to make, Kncyu. It's very fair for Taxman to give us extra information. – Riana ऋ 09:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because he's a b'crat and this is where the admins hang out. If I posted something remotely similar to any other talk page, it'd be canvassing, a blockable offence. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain how this worked?
I don't support nominations for de-adminship, but for curiosity's sake I'd like to know how the processed worked, and the general impression of it. If anyone from that time still hangs around, that is. Xiner (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion period before an RfA

 * Moved from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Danny, as this is not just about Danny's RFA. -- nae'blis'' 22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is well known in psychology that once we make a decision, we try to rationalize it and convince ourselves of its appropriateness in spite of evidence which, had we known in the first place, would have changed our mind. This goes for Support and Oppose votes, but in this case, I'm obviously referring to the hundred votes cast before serious concerns were corroborated.

What does everyone think about a discussion period before voting now - two days, maybe? Xiner (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing... this RfA is a pretty clear case where a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon thinking it was a landslide, then opposes appeared and that crashed to a halt. It was about 100-4, then there have been about 40 opposes and 40 supports since then. While a discussion period would seem to make sense, if you look at the history of RfA, major changes have literally never been able to happen, because there's always going to be someone fiercely opposed to any change you want to make. It would take pretty much Jimbo dictating a change for it to happen, in my opinion at least. --W.marsh 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's impenetrable to me that Discussions for adminship was rejected not on its merits, but on the way it was enacted - and then continues to be characterized as 'rejected' in all discussions since then. -- nae'blis 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Xiner's text above seems to assume that the people who said 'support' before the 'concerns were corroborated' (I'm not sure how a concern can be corroborated. I can see concerns being expressed and facts being corroborated, but...) are suffering from some sort of wrongthink because they've left their expressed opinions in place.  Danny is not perfect, but I believe he has demonstrated his commitment to the project (not to mention his respect for the community by re-running), and my decision to leave my support in place is made with that in mind.  If you classify the "legacy supports" (ie, the first 100) as problematic, please consider that many of us are aware of the claims and opinions brought to the discussion, but remain confident in Danny's ability to be a good administrator.  Regards, C HAIRBOY  (☎) 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But a 25:1 ratio turning into a 1:1 ratio is cause to at least think about what happened. I'm not saying everyone was on the bandwagon, I'm sure most people would have supported then or now, but there certainly was some gear shifting going on in the overall trend of the RfA. --W.marsh 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another example would be the currently ongoing RFA for Cla68, which has melted down from (32/5/5) to (40/23/4) during the extension period today (about 8 hours). -- nae'blis 22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone once said that extending an RfA is more likely to attract more opposers than supporters. I can't remember why that is, or who said it, but I vaguely remember that much. I found it quite interesting. --Deskana (ya rly)  17:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's that, or if we tend to extend RFAs with falling support more often than rising ones. -- nae'blis 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no statistically significant change in RFA support for RFAs left open beyond 7 days. Both positive and negative changes have occured.  Positive changes are in fact more common, though when they occur negative changes are often larger in degree.  Most RFAs that linger will do so accidentally, and so I can't say whether intentionally leaving an RFA open may be correlated with a decline.  Late breaking news, of the kind that leads to intentionally prolonging an RFA is nearly always negative, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is a significant effect there, but that happens so rarely it is hard to get a good picture.  Dragons flight 22:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that this is a good idea. I, myself, may have been a victim of groupthink. Grand  master  ka  02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's natural that RfAs in general tend to get more opposes with time. By definition, the nominator supports, and then the people who show up first, who are usually those watching the nominator's talk page, or the nominee's talk page tend to have similar views. People with opposing views tend to take more time before they notice that the discussion is going on. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting point?
So what are we suggesting? No "voting", but just questions/discussion, for the first 2-3 days? If we can at least agree on that, we can then debate the question/discussion format. - jc37 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment here and the related proposal. One way to get a discussion before voting is to have the candidates announce they are getting ready to do RfA and have discussion about it before the RfA page is created (You can't vote if the RfA page does not exist ;). We could do some voluntary RfAs this way if there are some candidates willing to do so. NoSeptember  18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Accepting self noms
Can we amend the instructions to say that users can delete the acceptance part of the form from self-nominated RfAs? It's not really a problem, but it seems pretty superfluous. John Reaves (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ben Aveling 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the instructions, but I think the best thing to do is create new template that is a copy-paste of rfa minus the acceptance line at rfaself(and also create rfaselfsubst for the preload at the nomination input box). I think this needs more input because there seems to be more than meets the eye at rfa (and because bots are involved). John Reaves (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
A case has been filed concerning Requests for adminship -- Cat chi? 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just curious, but in what ways is the system broken? —210 physicq  ( c ) 20:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's broken because somebody didn't get their way. Seems like every time somebody fails an RfA, we get to sit through a big debate about how we need to reform the system. The debates vary only in the level of commitment, ranging from a comment on this page to an RFC. Blah, I say. Kafziel Talk 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My RfA passed 62/0/0 and I think the system is broken too, so your categorization of the "RfA is broken" sentiment as exclusive to those who've recently failed is incorrect. Picaroon 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you start a discussion on the subject after your successful RfA? That would indeed be a break from the norm. Kafziel Talk 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mine passed unanimously as well, and I'm trying to make RFA better as well (which I realize isn't quite the same question as what you asked, Kaf, but it is related). -- nae'blis 21:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who are under the illusion that absolutely nothing is wrong with RFA are ought to check their priorities. -- Cat chi? 23:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are certainly an excellent example of what I'm talking about. The loudest dissent usually comes from users with block logs that look like this and a string of failed RfAs. Many of the people who think the system needs to change are precisely the ones the system was designed to protect us from. It's not pleasant to be identified as such, but that doesn't mean the process is faulty. Kafziel Talk 19:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the system is broken and have done so for a long time. My concern is that the system as it stands at the moment puts people off from even applying to be an admin. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind taking a look at a proposal aimed at improving RfA a bit. It's discussed here in a section down the page. Thanks, ChazBeckett 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally? I think that's kind of a good thing. I wanted to be an admin for a good long while, but never self-nomed, as I kept putting it off "until I felt better about it". Turns out someone else thought I was ready, and lots of other people agreed. Jimbo has said that being an admin isn't supposed to be a big deal, but I'm going to risk being ostracized and say that he was a slight bit wrong (though, as Centrx pointed out, that's an old quote at this point); if it really wasn't a big thing, then there wouldn't be a demarkation between editors and admins. Admins exist in a position of trust within the community, and if they have to pass muster moreso than an editor (the requirements there being "can successfully fill out a registration form"), I think that's acceptable. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kafziel, is the system protecting you from me? This may come as a shock to you but I am already a commons administrator. Adminship is officially no big deal (as per User:Jimbo Wales). -- Cat chi? 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We can say it's no big deal all we want, but until people start acting like it's no big deal, it will continue to be so. Also, I passed a near-unanimous RFA just a few weeks ago, and I still think the system is horribly broken. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">03:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote is 4 years old. Adminship needs to have a high entrance bar when a) Average Joe Idiot and Internet Moron #5679900 thinks about how cool Wikipedia is; b) Wikipedia is a powerful propaganda tool; and c) There are people who want to destroy Wikipedia. In 2003, there was roughly not even any vandalism. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Beg differ; there wasn't as much in 2003, but it was there. Then again, we didn't hand out adminship based on vandal-fighting, we handed it out for being sensible. There's a demarcation between editors and admins (one I refuse to recognize) because people insist on filing themselves into either camp. There's no cause to encourage that kind of balkanization; we're all in the same project working towards the same goal. The dividing line between Joe Idiot and Joe Admin is that the latter demonstrably "gets" Wikipedia and can be trusted not to delete the Main Page (with apologies to the admin who actually did do that; mistakes happen). Mackensen (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Does RfA need a radical overhaul?
Suggesting changes to RfA is perennial and the particular changes suggested never get anything approaching consensus. But let's step back a bit. Is there consensus that RfA needs a radical overhaul? Forget whether we agree about what exactly is wrong with it, or how exactly it might be 'fixed', I'm interested in testing the prior question. Is RfA in need of some drastic surgery? I'm almost tempted to call for a poll on that subject.
 * Polls force people to go one way or another, but a lot of people have views that don't require a radical overhaul. {PTO}—{speak} 20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah, then they'd say 'no' to a radical overhaul being necessary. My point is that if we can agree that the status-quo is no good, then perhaps we can agree a new method to change it. As long as everyone keeps fighting for their ideal option #32, then we'll be stuck with the status-quo. I'm trying to get an overall feel for the consensus, rather then allow all the subtle nuances.--Docg 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not poll on this. Durin suggested to me some time ago (I've been superbusy) a SWOT analysis, which might help identify some of the areas of concern more concretely. It dovetails pretty well with the WikiProject_on_Adminship, but I might just start it in my own userspace, as that project seems to be stagnant. -- nae'blis 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, let's try to see if we have a consensus that something needs done first. I salute your new inititive, but let's face it, it will end up in the junk yard like all the others before it.--Docg 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't see what another poll will accomplish. We know some people feel it needs an overhaul, and I will lay you 10:1 odds that there will be no consensus from another one. Actionable analysis seems to be the only way forward. -- nae'blis 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Everyone's been screaming "OVERHAUL! OVERHAUL!" for months now, but no one's done a damn thing about it. What makes this any different? —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff  14:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Support/Yes
 * 1) In general, yes --Docg 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose/No
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stop it! Actually discussion in general doesn't change anything. We've generated megabytes of discussion on WT:RFA and what has changed in the past 2 years? The questions are at the top of the template and we say "discuss" instead of "vote" sometimes. That's really all that's changed... so there's obviously some kind of obstacle to changing RFA that discussion is so far failing to at all come close to addressing. Yet people go on generating more megabytes of discussion to archive. --W.marsh 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Please God not another poll. Nothing will be accomplished by this or any future poll; how many polls have to be attempted before we realize this? -  auburn pilot  talk  20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your better solution? Picaroon 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that none of these things ever accomplish anything... so they're kind of pointless. --W.marsh 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much my point exactly. A poll isn't going to provide a solution any more than my comment above will. If we want to get a discussion going, there are ways of doing just that. A poll isn't one of them. -  auburn pilot  talk  20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more of because we don't even know what's wrong, but we keep on saying something is wrong, which doesn't help matters. —210 physicq  ( c ) 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, OK forget the poll for now. But here's where I'm coming from before you trash it. RfA reform is perennial - and we are nowhere near getting a consensus for any particular reform proposal. Partly because every time someone proposes one, not only do they get opposed by those who hate their idea, they also get opposed by people who say 'well, I'd rather change it to my favoured system - so the idea perishes and we stay put. Basically, another new initiative on RfA reform will just end up in the trash like all the others, so don't even try.

What I'm trying to ask is this: is there a consensus that 'something must be done', that we need to depart from RfA as it stands? I genuinely don't know the answer to that question. However, it is important as So, my question is genuinely important. Where does consensus lie? For or against the need for change of some type or other? There are worse ways of gauging that than polling - we're not voting (since there is no proposal) we're just measuring rough opinion. --Docg 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus that RfA needs some form of radical change, then we'd be better stopping proposing solutions, until and unless there is. Since in that event all proposals must fail.
 * If there is a consensus that 'something should be done', and yet nothing gets done, then we should perhaps be examining the way we change policies. If we agree the status-quo is undesirable, but we get left with it, then our process for agreeing change is broken and perhaps we should look at another (e.g. electing a group to come up with a new suggestion - and pre-agreeing that we'll give whatever they come up with a trial run before making up our minds).
 * I, for one, say nothing needs to be done at all. The system works. Perhaps I'm cynical, as Picaroon suggests above, but in my experience the ones who rage against it most strongly are the ones who have repeatedly failed the process. Kafziel Talk 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather, it is that nothing can be done. Most of what people perceive is wrong about the process is actually the voters' biases themselves, whether standards are too high, standards are too low, voters are too picky, voters are not picky enough, whether bureaucrats are fair or not, etc. —210 physicq  ( c ) 21:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * RFA process without voters has no biases induced by voters. ;) --Gmaxwell 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have enough admins or not?
How about trying to answer this simpler question, do we have enough admins, yes or no? Paul August &#9742; 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We've got plenty of admins, but not enough patience in my opinion. For example, nobody wants to tackle the image backlogs because they're tedious and mindless. Somebody has to do them, though. {PTO} {speak} 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and eliminated a whole day's worth of one of the the image backlogs before; I have no problem doing such mindless fun, but it takes a lot of time and effort, which isn't something I'm just rolling in right now. Patience isn't necessarily the only issue. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone find links to those recent graphs plotting number of users vs. number of admins, showing the slope of new users outpacing new admins. With attrition of active admins, it is no wonder active admins are going to wonder who will help if they get tired.  I ask you this, have admins in general yet declared they are bored, with nothing to do?  Or are they just heads down busy, or off on some well-earned rest... Shenme 22:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone link to somewhere where someone has mentioned the image backlogs outside a discussion about RFA being broken? As far as I can tell, the backlogs aren't a problem. No-one seems to complain about them, they only get mentioned when someone is looking for an example of something that isn't working. --Tango 22:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about on-wiki discussions, but I've been complaining about image backlogs on IRC trying to get admins to do them for a year. --Rory096 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do need more admins. CSD is now almost always full, with two hundred articles much of the time. We used to be freaking out if it hit 100, and the threshold for a backlog was 50! We also have far less RC patrollers than we used to, and things sneak through all the time. Our admin to user ratio is constantly dropping. Yes, we need more admins. --Rory096 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of CSDs though, the rules have greatly changed. Blatant advertising, speedy copyvios, A7 covering companies, websites and groups... none of these existed when I became an admin (in the days of low CSD backlogs), and each of those are among the most difficult and time-consuming speedy taggings for an admin to make a decision on. Although that still means we need more admins, it's a bit more complex because it now takes a lot longer to assess and resolve the average CSD tagging. --W.marsh 23:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think saying "Do we have enough admins?" is like saying "Do we have enough editors?" We always need more good, mature editors.. we always need more admins like that. Since this is a volunteer system, I don't think we'll be very successful relying on a few people performing superhuman efforts, whereas if we have thousands of people doing a little bit every day, well, that is a long-term solution. --W.marsh 23:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is the problem that too many nominations aren't succeeding? What I see is roughly 7 out of 10 of them approved (realistic, in the ballpark nominations I mean)...unscientific impression. There's a steady stream of admins being created, no? If the problem is backlogs, would the extra 1 or 2 admins created a week by more of the current nominations succeeding help when the admins that are being created now aren't helping? It just seems to me that this comes up everytime a nomination that's supported by a large enough group of editors fails or has a larger than normal amount of opposers. RxS 00:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Compare number of admins with number of active admins. Do you think all can show up all the time or even consistently?  And which are the admins who are more likely to be active?  Besides the wikiholics that can't stay away, it will be the newer admins who have shown their enthusiasm by asking for the mop.  You mention a rate of new admins per week.  What I've seen references to is, effectively, the rate of admins that over time must limit their activities, or even quietly cease those activities.  Basically, it is not a number of admins game, it is a changing proportion of active admins. We need to replace the admins going inactive, plus some more.  Shenme 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not too worried about the quantity of admins right now. What I am worried is the large number of backlogs for boring tasks and the pitiful number of bureaucrats.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the question "Do we have enough admins?" is that it suggests there is a fixed amount where we magically have "enough" admins. There isn't; the more the merrier, always. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Polling is no longer useful, time for action
Polling is no longer useful. Asking the same question over and over will not change the answer. WP:AMS is pretty clear. Also please do NOT, support/oppose this statement. -- Cat chi? 23:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think RFA can change in only two ways, Jimbo decrees it, or the b'crats decree it and make it stick (people'd be way more likely to oppose them than Jimbo). As for Jimbo doing it, who knows. As for the b'crats, seems unlikely... the active ones were arguably elected largely because they had no history or inclination towards acting in such a unilateral, potentially controversial manner. We might just not have any b'crats who could/would force a change. --W.marsh 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo will not interfere in RfA.--Docg 09:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He wants the community to mature on its own but to save time he might call up for a discussion. -- Cat chi? 09:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the bureaucrats won't change RfA, then the only hope left for reform is to break RfA completely. Perhaps it would be for the greater good to gather 50 Wikipedians in otherwise good standing who will oppose every future RfA nomination for some spurious reason. Unfortunately that's unfair to the candidates. Kusma (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we don't need any more admins? ;-) --Spartaz Humbug! 13:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a fine example of how you shouldn't get things done. --Michael Billington (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep don't try to break RFA. It's already broken. We need to try to think of a way to fix it.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not yet broken to the point where it is crystal clear for everyone that we need to change the system. Perhaps we have to stop promoting admins and go on admin strike so the need for reform becomes clear. Kusma (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted an idea to the mailing list last night which I will work up into a proposal in my user space. Sam Blacketer 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be a temporary disruption in order to fix a serious problem. Now you can choose between WP:IAR and WP:POINT to interpret this. Kusma (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding spurious opposition into RfAs won't fix anything. Bureaucrats will either ignore the spurious reasons or the candidates will get rejected. This isn't a good idea. ChazBeckett 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, definitely not a good idea. It would cause much disruption and wikidrama, yet it would still fail to point to a workable solution. IronDuke  15:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be unsuccessful RfAs that were suppored by a majority of participants. I haven't seen any arguments that candidates should be promoted without less than 50% support, so it's probably safe to exclude these from conversation. It would be helpful to do some analysis of RfAs that failed with 65%+ support (or some similar figure). Did these RfAs fail due to a flaw in the RfA system or were there legitimate reasons to oppose granting adminship? How can we reduce false negatives (rejecting good candidates) without increasing false positives (promoting unsuitable candidates)? What's the best way to keep the parts of RfA that work well and replace the parts that don't? Before any new system can be implemented, I think we need to address questions such as these. ChazBeckett 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that if there's to be useful change, the crats need to drive it. The simplest thing that could possibly work would be to grant admin privileges liberally to those who seek them, but this is a problem as long as we have no lightweight way of removing them.  I don't see a reason that crats couldn't remove them as needed, but til now they've been unwilling to do so.  Whatever they do, if it's different than what's happened before, they're going to have to put up with a bunch of people complaining about it.. which is probably why they haven't previously been willing to change.   Maybe we need a fresh crop of especially brave crats?  Friday (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One technical reason is that crats can't remove admin status, only stewards can. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to change this in MediaWiki, but I am fairly sure it would require approval beyond the English Wikipedia. ChazBeckett 15:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The stewards could do it at the request of the crats right now today. Sure, maybe the software should catch up, but we don't need to wait for it.  This would happen infrequently anyway, as long as things were going well.  Friday (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another proposal for "reforming" RfA
I've written up a brief proposal for improving RfA. The process would remain the same up until closure. RfA that aren't obvious pass/fails enter a discussion period of all bureaucrats. I believe this would help to reduce the perception of "rogue" bureaucrats and also increase the number of successful RfAs by widening the discretionary range to 60-80% support. I welcome any feedback and hope this can be refined into a workable process. Thanks! ChazBeckett 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While obviously not ideal (it keeps RfA as a vote), I don't think we're going to get much better than this, at least in the short term, and it's a hell of a lot better than what RfA is right now, and it's only a small change, but it could have some good effects. I think we should accept this. The only change I suggest is that a 24 hours minimum is not necessary, and is instruction creep. Some decisions don't take as long as others, and there's no reason to force everyone to sit around for 23 hours doing nothing. --Rory096 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to the 24 hour limit, you're probably right that it's not really necessary. I think we can trust bureaucrats to wait a reasonable period of time and get input from as many other crats as possible. I'll strike that from the proposal. Thanks, ChazBeckett 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that a series of tweaks to improve the process will be more successful and accepted than one huge overhaul. I agree that the proposal isn't ideal, but I believe it retains the good parts of RfA while also working towards increasing the promotion rate and hopefully eliminating the controversial closures. ChazBeckett 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of bureaucrats discussing it with other bureaucrats when in the non-obvious range since it allows the fate of one's RFA to lie in the hands of more than one bureaucrat. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most would say that any problems RfA has have very little to do with whether bureaucrats are accurately reading consensus. I can think of only 3 examples in the history of Wikipedia where this has been an issue; that's really not it.  While I have no problem asking bureaucrats to discuss closures first, my understanding is that the objections are primarily with the "voting" process itself.  So, I guess my position is that this is a solution looking for a problem; I'm not sure the extra workload on the 'crats is worth it considering it isn't addressing any actual systemic problem with RfA.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the proposal would actually address a few problems. First, it would extend the bureaucrat's discretionary range down to 60%. This would allow any candidate with even a remote chance of promotion to be considered on their merits. I believe this would ultimately lead to a higher promotion rate. Second, it would require any potentially controversial closes to be discussed by multiple bureaucrats. You're correct that there haven't been too many RfAs where crat judgment was a problem, but those few cases have been really nasty. This proposal would eliminate the appearance of a "rogue" bureaucrat by unifying them behind a decision. People might still grumble, but there wouldn't be the perception that RfA closures depend of which crat is closing. Finally, I think it would make it easier for new bureaucrats to be promoted. A bureaucrat could only close obvious RfAs (defined by a wide, but specific range) without involving other crats. This proposal would result in the reduction of power of any single bureaucrat while increasing the power of bureaucrats as a group. ChazBeckett 20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. Could you elaborate a bit more on what you foresee as the type of discussion amongst bureaucrats for, let's say, an RfA with a 65% support rate.  Are the crats weighing the merits of each support, oppose, and neutral comment, or are they discussing their own opinions of the merits of the candidate in question?  On what lines is consensus reached?  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page of the proposal, perhaps I should have done so here instead but I didn't see this discussion. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your comments on the proposal talk page. The proposed changes aren't intended to solve everything that's wrong with RfA, but I think it's a start. It would increase the power of bureaucrats as a whole and not only permit, but require, discussion of RfAs that currently are closed as "failed". Instead of attempting a sweeping overhaul of RfA, I think it would be easier to introduce a series of "tweaks" that each improve the process incrementally. ChazBeckett 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform -- Cat chi? 20:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think something along these lines was offered up not too long ago, not exactly the same but close. . Might not be a bad idea to throw it to the group of bureaucrat if a RFA falls in a certain range... RxS 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

BotKung
This bot has attempted to iw this page 3 times in just over a day and been reverted each time. Someone posted a note to the bot page, but it hasn't seemed to have an effect. Can someone please take a look to help the bot operator figure out what they are doing wrong, or just fix it themselves? --After Midnight 0001 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not doing anything wrong. We just do it a different way. The RFA pages on other Wiki's are on the RFA page as a transclusion. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe somebody could go to Bugzilla and propose a new "bot" protection level. //PTO 17:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Or we could just add . --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That only works when you program the bot to specifically look for things like that. AWB and pywikipedia have that feature built-in, but a hand-coded bot might not. Category:Exclusion compliant bots looks pretty sparse, anyway. //PTO 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to allow Hagerman and Martin bot? Hagerman should be used to sign RFA's subpages, which it currently is, not the actual page. No clue why Martin bot needs to be allowed. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MartinBot reverts page blankings, so obviously we want it active. I figured that HagermanBot might stop signing subpages if we didn't allow it, but I'll remove it in hopes that that won't happen. Picaroon 18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Mathbot? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mathbot is only needed on subpages also. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember that most bots still don't pay attention the bot allow/disallow systems for now, so there's no need to argue over the contents of the template :) Mart inp23 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MartinBot wouldn't pay attention to a nobots system anyway, though I suspect that the bot won't be able to edit this page unless it is on the "protected" list, which I don't think it is - I'll take a look. Hopefully the owner of BotKung will be able to resolve this (fairly minor) issue soon. Mart inp23 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is why the Administrators' noticeboard doesn't have the same problem; after all, its interwiki links are transcluded via Administrators' noticeboard/Header. Picaroon 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One more proposal for RfA reform
More fundamental than ChazBeckett's proposal. See User:Sam Blacketer/RfA reform. Sam Blacketer 20:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad proposal, my main problem is that it doesn't comply with the Pareto principle. That is, most RfA work fine with straight voting, with either extremely high support or opposition. Those should be handled quickly so that the attention can be focused on RfAs where the outcome isn't so clear. The proposal seems rather "heavyweight" and time-consuming for everyone involved. I could see using your proposed process for controversial cases, but not for all RfAs. Perhaps people with previously failed RfAs could request to use this method on subsequent RfAs? ChazBeckett 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a fair point. It would be a more involved process. Perhaps the two could run in parallel with the applicant making the choice of procedure? Sam Blacketer 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Popular Front?
All these different proposals remind me of Monty Python's Life of Brian: "Judean People's Front?! We're the People's Front of Judea! The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front. Bunch of splitters." Ha ha ha... Kafziel Talk 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I don't find that a particularly helpful contribution. I'm not criticising Chaz' proposal, I'm happy to work with him, and with anyone else. We're not feuding factions. We're working together to solve problems. Sam Blacketer 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say "working together" may be a bit of stretch, since a hundred separate proposals will never really merge into one cohesive proposal that pleases everyone. But I'm not trying to dissuade you, either; as long as everyone makes his own proposal, there will never be consensus for change and that's okay by me. It really is quite similar to the movie, and I was just trying to add a little humor here. Lighten up. Kafziel Talk 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can look at the various proposals and discern a great deal about the views people have about what RfA should be and isn't, so even if what eventually happens does not incorporate bits from every individual proposal, they all help. It really isn't at all similar to feuding competing political factions, and saying so, if it promotes cynicism and deters people from offering their own opinion, is not (in my opinion at least) helpful. Sam Blacketer 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, deterring people from creating their own subpage suggestions is very helpful to the goal of reform: countless forks only make consensus harder to reach. In any system, the field of options needs to be gradually narrowed, not gradually expanded. That why we have political primaries. That's why we have elimination tournaments in sports. Eventually people need to shut up and work on what's already there. No progress can be made toward a final policy if new variables are constantly being introduced. To that end, all of these new ideas could have been proposed in an existing discussion. But that would make the ideas less special and individual, and nobody wants to do that. So we're left with a bunch of splintered subpages and a lot of ineffectual breast-beating, and next month we'll have more of these same discussions on this very same page. Kafziel Talk 21:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many suggestions and proposals can help form a better consensus. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We will of course eventually need to get it down to one proposal that can be put to the community at large. But in the early stages we need ideas. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Project space" editcountitis
I guess many people are distracted with sweeping proposals to fix RfA -- if it can be done, I'm interested -- but I want to try to address one particular problem it's got now.

I'm becoming fed up with an insidious form of editcountitis that's been dominating several RfA debates recently, and that's "project space" editcountitis. "Sorry, contribute more to the project," voters say, "and come back in a few months so we can shoot your next RfA down in flames for being too soon." Or something along those lines.

First of all, "contribute more to the project" is an infuriating bit of doublespeak. The project is to build an encyclopedia, and this comment is usually directed at people who make the majority of their edits in article space. The voters really mean "make more edits in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: space".

It got the name "editcountitis" because it's a bad thing, and fine-grained forms of it are still bad. Wikipedia shouldn't be about racking up a high score. And when this score is the number of Wikipedia-namespace edits, it's a particularly meaningless measure of editor quality. Let's look at how you get points on this scale:


 * Copyediting an article: 0 points
 * Correcting information in an article: 0 points
 * Adding well-referenced new information to an article: 0 points
 * Resolving a difficult content dispute on an article's talk page: 0 points
 * Voting on XfD: 1 point
 * Voting on RfA: 1 point
 * Voting on every existing RfA based on some meaningless criterion instead of looking at the user's contributions: 15 points
 * Voting on every existing AfD based on an inclusionist or deletionist agenda, not based on the articles' content: 500 points
 * Saying "me too" in a Wikipedia policy discussion: 1 point
 * Making a very well-reasoned point in a Wikipedia policy discussion: 1 point
 * Getting into a protracted argument that goes nowhere in a Wikipedia policy discussion: 10-20 points
 * Introducing a successful new guideline: 20 points
 * Introducing an unsuccessful new guideline: 20 points
 * Introducing an unsuccessful new guideline and trying to propose almost the same thing again, instead of seeing the bigger picture: 40-60 points
 * Complaining about RfA: 1 point (I don't need it anyway)

Someone tell me why we'd want to judge admin candidates on this bizarre scale.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say it is a combination of you misrepresentation the situation a bit, and the fact the the areas you are talking about are important to an admin. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's important for an admin to be involved in some of these things, but counting the quantity of edits in one or two namespaces is a really bad way to measure the quality of this involvement. If I'm misrepresenting the situation, what do people actually mean when they vote "Oppose; contribute more to the project" or "Oppose; not enough project-space contributions"? I thought it was rather clear that these were based on edit-count numbers.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty odd take on things, Rspeer. --Deskana (ya rly)  22:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd think it's because I'm shedding light on a pretty odd criterion.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rspeer, if the intent of what your saying is that evaluating admin candidates on whether they have meaningfully taken part in XfD discussions is better than judging a "project space" total, then I agree. Addhoc 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree with you. You've just named two criteria that are deficient in different ways. What's so special about deletion?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Back in the ooooolldd days, before edit count inflation, we would read every single edit made by a person, every one,  (I'd like to say we did so uphill, both ways, in driving snow, and we liked it! But alas, it was actually quite do-able at the time) and thus we would learn weather or not they were suited to being an admin candidate. ;-) --Kim Bruning 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't really mind using rspeer's point system. The only problem with it is that it gives too much points for some things. There should be no bonus for voting on RfAs with "meaningless criterion" nor should there be points for voting in every XfD with agendas. The points for introducing an unsuccessful guideline should not give as many points as a successful guideline. Lastly, there should be no bonus points for reintroducing a proposal already introduced. Okay. Now that I have critiqued this false proposal, I can offer my opinion on editcountitis. What would you prefer to vote on if not a user's contributions? I know very few of the candidates for RfA, so I need to have a method for determining whether I should vote for them or not. I have heard many times the evil of editcountitis and I have not yet heard of a better technique for voting in RfAs. Captain   panda  01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the point was that using "wikipedia space edits" as a criteria unavoidably leads to the point system rspeer suggests. If you're not going to spend any longer evaluating candidates' contributions than it takes to look at edit totals, don't !vote by counting edits, don't !vote.  -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As to what to do instead, perhaps look at every one of the candidate's last 100 edits, then the last 10 in each namespace, then a random selection of other edits. If anything jumps out at you as warranting further investigation - investigate further.  -- Rick Block (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or if you don't give a damn about edit count, look at the candidate's talk page or behavior on RfA. —210 physicq  ( c ) 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of counting project edits is to see how much experience a candidate has in the sort of area admins usually work in. A vote should not be solely based on project count, but it can have a part in the decision of what to vote. (Sorry about my above comment. I was mixed up there.) :( Captain   panda  02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits in project space really have no bearing on someone's ability to function on Wikipedia. In four years (per fellow cantankerous curmudgeon Kim Bruning) I've seen no proof whatsoever that a link exists. Furthermore, it's quite possible to conduct administrative actions successfully without editing there. Historically one of the most important administrative tasks, vandal-fighting, concentrated in the main and user namespaces. One can be knowledgeable about policy without editing the respective page or talk page. Mackensen (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is more that people have concerns that a user has little XfD experience (or reporting vandals to AIV), but that's a very minor quibble; ultimately, I totally agree with you. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they'll figure it out. It's not rocket science (except figuring out the stupid templates). Mackensen (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Rspeer brings up an excellent point. Candidates are getting support votes because they frequently participate in whichever Wikipedia: space debate is "trendy," and not by building the project. In fact, I would be more willing to oppose a candidate for hanging around places like WP:AN and WP:AN/I before they were admins, unless all they were doing was posting requests. Although no one has mentioned him by name, I think User:Xoloz is the archetypal source of this type of vote, and ultimately, I think it is detrimental to the potential admin ranks and the project (not the Wikipedia namespace!) as a whole. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I do agree with Rspeer and RyanGerbil that it's a bad exclusive criterion to use on an admin candidate, it is obviously so - and it almost never picks up enough momentum to take down an RfA on its own. There are always enough mindless non-admin sympathy supporters like me around to counter that kind of oppose vote. And besides: Xoloz is very well entitled to his opinion on suitability of any candidate. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I generally agree that there should be more focus on how the user reacts to situations and how he/she would use the admin tools, though I agree with User:Captain panda that experience should not be classed as "irrelevant". I would also like to say that there is a big difference between a "neutral" vote and a "oppose" vote, in my opinion experience concerns are a valid reason to go for "neutral", though people should come up with more important and detailed reasons to "oppose". Camaron1 | Chris  13:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kncyu38: it looks to me right now like Joebengo and Vessicle's RfAs are failing for exactly this reason. In fact, every one of Joebengo's 10 oppose votes is based on "project count" or agreement with others who opposed based on project count. Camaron1: my point, again, is that this number isn't a meaningful measure of experience.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A number can only ever be a guide as edits vs. overall contributions varies from person to person - with some editors using the preview button and editing only one section at a time more than others. However, experience in general should still be taken into account. In the end their is no "one fits all" measure which can determine if someone should be an admin or not, and what measures are more important than others is always going to be controversial, that is why AfD allows everyone (within reason) to have their opinion. Camaron1 | Chris  20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see promoted/not promoted stats based on number of project space edits, ignoring candidates with under 1,000 or 2,000 edits (to skip people with few project edits because they have few edits altogether). Or perhaps success rate based on percentage of edits to project space. This would show us whether people with a lot of edits, but few project edits, are actually likely to succeed. I rather suspect they aren't at all. Of course this is way beyond what I can generate... maybe one of the stats gurus out there is having a slow day at work and wants something to do :-) --W.marsh 13:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, people with 20,000+ edits often have a tough time at RfA just because they have made so many enemies. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be the reason so many RfBs fail. Captain   panda  16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see what you mean, a lot of the opposes I have seen seem in RfB'S are related to past actions by the user - who someone disapproved of for some reason. Camaron1 | Chris  20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny's RfA
I think Danny's RfA is going to be the first time 100 people have opposed an RfA... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support ratio has been constantly sinking and is now only slightly above 70% - I'm too curious if this RfA will be extended, too. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any reason why it would be. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">12:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support ratio has been constantly sinking and is now only slightly above 70%. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say three bureaucrats ponder over promotion, and let simple majority prevail. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the decision is, I think it's essential for bureaucrats to provide detailed reasoning. A promotion or rejection without comment will only lead to massive arguments. ChazBeckett 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

71% right now. I hope that the closing bureaucrat(s) will feel able to show at least a little discretion and decisiveness in their conclusion. RfA is not (yet) a vote.--Anthony.bradbury 13:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if some bureaucrat drops in and makes a unilateral decision, disregarding the community. If that be the case, there are a lot of better users in the past who need to be sysoped, I daresay, User:Ambuj.Saxena who was failed at 74.x% because a popular user accused him of failing her FA nomination. Retrospective effect, I say. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you believe in numbers or you don't. RfA oughtn't be a forum for score-settling, but strict adherance to numbers makes it an all-to-viable strategy. Regarding community, if we go by a numbers, a bureaucrat will be forced to either disregard 30% or 70%. Which is the greater sin? Regards, Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the raw percentages for a moment, do you think there is substantial opposition in Danny's RfA? ChazBeckett 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mack: The current RfA system depends heavily upon numbers; and then there's machtpolitik. We are supposed to lay low till we're administrators, or aren't we? In Danny's case, or any other former administrator, who gave up adminship, the 'crats can relax the community conventions, a bit. A former administrator attracts a lot of flak, more often than not. And we cannot forget the hordes of mechanical nodders and members of cliques who hitch on to the fad. Then again, not all of us are perfect, or are we? &mdash;  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I never "laid low", and I passed 91/4/1. I'm actually a lot more willing to support someone that shows willingness to get involved in tough situations and handles it well than someone that hasn't had any "trial by fire" yet so to speak. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember that there's no simply decision that will satisfy everyone. Even if it get closed as no consensus, I suspect at least someone will go as far as opening a RFAr to try and get the b'crat who did it removed. Such things have even been alluded to already. So as much as we're down on the b'crats... how many of us have ever had to make a Wikipedia-related decision that would be so massively controversial no matter what we did? I just think people should remember that when they start reaching for their flamethrowers tonight. They probably won't, but they should. --W.marsh 13:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking I shouldn't comment at all, since I supported him and trust him to not misuse the tools. That being said there's substantial opposition, whether it's substantive is difficult. I'm loath to enter into that dispute for fear that anything I say prior to the close will only inflame matters further. I think there's unnecessary bad blood going around, and that many long time users have needlessly escalated the situation. Further than that (on that question) I won't go because I fully expect at least one arbitration case to come out this affair.

Spending several years doing the office's dirty work made many enemies. Much of the anger over his failure to invoke OFFICE expressly ignores an important problem: the very invocation of OFFICE attracted so much attention as to render its initial purpose (to quietly deal with serious problems) impossible. The community, whatever one means by that, was not prepared to let the office quietly deal with problems in an official manner. Whether this means that the community isn't prepared to trust the foundation and its agents I leave to others. The upshot was that office requests had to be handled under the table. Personally I'm glad that we avoided those lawsuits and I consider that of paramount importance. There again, I do different things on Wikipedia than most. My perspective is different. Returning the question of a substantive opposition, it's clear that there's a broad cross-section of the community that doesn't think he'll use the tools properly–ignoring people opposing him because they think it's a sham, or they hate the office, or they think he hangs out with the wrong crowd. Even if you ignore those, there's still what I would call a substantive opposition. At the same time, there are plenty of people who don't think he's a danger, and have advanced strong arguments to that effect.

The biggest problem is that the position of bureaucrat has lost its authority. We know this because we know that the community will refuse to accept whatever decision gets made. It's unfortunate that at present we grant a position responsibility but not authority. If RfA was a straight vote it wouldn't matter, but if RfA is based on consensus (as opposers and supporters agree), then RfA is not a vote and the bureaucrat has to make a decision. Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely why I said three or more bureaucrats should take the decision to promote or not to promote. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is a helpful suggestion, if the logistics allow it. Incidentally he just got his 100th oppose !vote, something which is I think without precedent. Fascinating RfA and I just hope the decision is made in as transparent and damage-limiting a way as possible. --Guinnog 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Crats shouldn't make decisions, they should make determinations. There is a difference. "Decision" implies choice, a crat has no choice, if there is a consensus, they have to promote, if there isn't consensus, they have to close as no consensus. The crats job is to determine which of those is the case, not to decide anything.
 * I think a joint decision would be very wise. It doesn't need to be anything as complicated as a "best of 3" style thing, it can just be 2 crats have an informal chat and then both sign the result. The details don't matter, as long as the result has the signatures of 2 crats attached.
 * --Tango 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My favorite rule of thumb is that if there are WP:100 opposes, it's a no consensus, and people need to discuss more. In the case of RFA, there's no realdiscussion space though. Since this hasn't really happened before, we could make a page where we discuss the substantive issues (for instance, people might want to argue that actions by Dannyisme (Danny following orders) should not count against Danny acting by himself.), and then after that, we could either hold a 2nd poll, or we could save some time and simply see if people strike their opposition from the original discussion.

Hmm, bit unprecedented for RFA, this. Any other ideas how to come to consensus most easily? --Kim Bruning 18:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In discussions with more than a certain number of people on both sides, consensus is impossible to achieve. Actually, a real discussion between more than a certain number of people is impossible to achieve. Maybe we should put more emphasis on voting in the cases where discussion is not a cure. Kusma (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with RfA
Please contribute to User:Durin/What is wrong with RfA. All comers are welcome. This is a light weight effort to garner community input on what is perceived to be wrong with RfA. There are no right or wrong answers. Thank you, --Durin 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Honesty asks a question
"Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?" is one of the 3 qs asked. However, would it also work if there was a question to the words of

"Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are not proud of, and why?"

Maybe not asked exactly like this but close enough and hope for honesty. Simply south 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not make that an optional question? I think it's a good idea, but not for one of the main ones. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to "make" it anything; anyone is welcome to ask any RfA nom any question they want. I do think it is a good question, though. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats: please ignore all opposes regarding Office actions
See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Danny and comment there, not here, if you wish. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Section editing
The sub-pages of candidates are editable by sections, but the transcluded pages are not. This is kind of troublesome as some of the sub-pages can grow to a size uneditable by dial-up users. As an extreme example, the Danny page is 270k. Is this a technical issue or is there some method of formatting the sub-pages so users could section edit?

As a tangent, the summary page can get quite huge as well. Is it time to re-format the summary page to avoid transclusions? SchmuckyTheCat 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

!Vote
Avoiding for the moment the question of whether RfA is a vote, why do people write "!vote" instead of just "vote"? What's the meaning of the exclamation sign? Just curious. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An exclamation point in most logical and programming languages means "Not" Raul654 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I always thought of it as a way of saying "vote but I know that 'RfA (or AfD) is not a vote' so I'm acknowledging that so that no one will bite my head off." (When I'm doing my clerking for the ArbCom, I have to force myself to remember not to type the exclamation point, because the arbitrators really do vote.) Newyorkbrad 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, it would be vote(!), at least for me :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha, therefore
 * !(support !vote) != (oppose !vote)
 * Good to know. :) Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure User:DeathPhoenix coined it. John Reaves (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's kind of hilarious. Since it obviously functions as vote, nobody can come up with another word to adequately substitute for it, so "!vote" has become the popular way to talk about a vote intelligibly while not committing the heresy of actually calling it a vote. Implicit recognition of reality coupled with outward denial of it. Everyking 10:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find that the word "opinion" can be substituted for "vote" with no loss of meaning. CMummert · talk 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You could pronounce it "unvote", kind of like the Orwellian "ungood". It's got kind of a Newspeak vibe to it anyway. Everyking hits the nail on the head for what it means.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually had the same question. So now that's what a !vote is. — An as  talk? 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just H sockpuppetry
Wow, just noticed the issue at Danny's RfA. Browsing a little through the socks' contribs, I found Requests_for_adminship/Pascal.Tesson, which was unsuccessfully closed at (73/26/6) including 2 oppose votes by Just H. 87.78.145.183 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have found inaccuracies in your analysis. Not only did Just H cross out the first vote he made when he made the second one, but he also had one vote in neutral (this is the vote that was crossed out) and one in oppose. You may want to look over it again. Also, it is very unlikely that Just H given the evidence thusfar. Captain   panda  04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What does "it is very unlikely that Just H given the evidence" mean? – Steel 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a thread on WP:AN about this. Just H sock-voted in several RfAs. – Steel 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Said rfa features one oppose (19) by User:Just H, and another one (24) by User:Yankee Rajput. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I included it as evidence on AN/I. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake in this. I assumed the IP reporting this meant that Just H had voted twice under the name "Just H". Sorry about that. Captain   panda  00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Very Simple Admin Reform
If, as many people seem to suggest, it is too difficult to pass RFA, the easiest solution is to simply lower the bar. I would therefore suggest that the "promotion point" of 75% (3/4ths support) be lowered to 67% (2/3rds support).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that make it a vote? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No more nor less than it is today. I suggest no changes other than to the "cutoff" point.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I would agree in prinipal, I thought the idea of reform was to make it less vote like, not simply continue the current trend. Simply reducing the cut off point will get us a few extra admins, but if it's set in stone, there's no room for consensus judging Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest three or more bureaucrats discussing on the talk page in case of close calls, just like they did in Danny's. That makes it more transparent than anything. I suppose, the conventions can be relaxed a bit in the case of former administrators as they are likely to attract a lot of flak. But dishing out cut-off points and percentages makes it all the more rigid and inflexible. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Several proposals, some of them interesting, have been posted to /Reform. Why don't more people engage in discussion there? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because some of us have been discussing this issue for a year, and there seems to be no consensus to do anything. Kusma (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The things which lead to most controversy is not really the cut-off point, but whether bureaucrats will respect the cut-off point when it has been set. The controversies on RFA have largely been related to that, and changing the threshold will just move the problem to another level. I am not really convinced that RFA is too hard to pass given that a steady stream go through each week, and those who don't pass usually fail for a reason which can be remedied if they wish to continue pursuing adminship. I'm not saying that lowering the threshold is such a bad idea, for one Kappa and Badlydrawnjeff who I supported would have passed if the threshold were two thirds (Yes, part of me holds the opinion that "RFA works if it promotes the people I want promoted, and doesn't promote those I don't want promoted. Otherwise RFA doesn't work."). I'm just not convinced that it's needed or will solve all that many problems. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This suggestion won't resolve the controversies (but then, I'm not convinced anything will) but it will resolve most of the complaints.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it will solve most of the complaints either, but I can understand the sentiment that more admins would be good. Below 75% the oppose section normally has plenty of serious concerns over the candidate in question, but whether that translates to bad candidacies is a different question. (I cannot see that Carnildo or Ryulong have gone off the rails with their admin tools despite being promoted with great controversy. In the case of Freestylefrappe, a below 75% promotion ended badly however.) At best, a candidate promoted with a low percentage sets out to prove that all his critics were wrong and that can produce a very good admin indeed :-). Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that there's zero correlation between an admin "going off the rails" and the support ratio in his RFA.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you reduced the threshold to 10% support I think you would start seeing some correlation :-). But I'll agree that 75% to 67% is not very dramatic and will not lead to significant drop in admin quality. Many candidates in that range fail due to lack of experience in some way (whether it is in Wikipedia process, article writing, user-talk interaction, length of time, or similar), but are clearly good contributors. The somewhat lower level of experience might mean that they make a few newbie mistakes early on in their admin career, (responding to vandals by fully protecting pages instead of blocking the vandal, deleting something which should not have been deleted, and so on) but if they learn quickly I don't think there will be a big problem in most cases. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, agree this is sensible. Looking at the 'pass marks' of admins who have run into difficulties and had the buttons removed, they don't generally have low pass marks. Would suggest that after implementation, we could review after a few months to gauge whether admins passed in the range of 66-75% have more problems. Addhoc 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been suggested a couple of times; I think it is a good idea. It also is related to an actual problem (too few admins are being promoted, so we make promotion easier). Many other ideas are about ideology (too much like voting etc.) without a clear reasoning what problem with RfA they would fix or why they would do that. Kusma (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if we became more active at coaching and recruiting potential candidates. During the time when this discussion has been underway (counting the thread above when it was at CN) the number of unfulfilled requests for coaches at Admin coaching/Requests has grown from 48 to 54.  I'm already coaching several editors toward adminship.  Let's leave the system as it is and mentor more people.  Durova Charge! 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should lower our standards for admins, Durova has the right idea in increasing the number of candidates. Lots of people pass all the time, it is good that many people fail also. All lowering standards will do it make more, less qualified, less trusted admins. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that standards for admin's have risen over the past years, especially in terms of requirements for service length and edit counts. (When I got promoted in June 2005 I had three months with an account and about 3000 edits, I don't think a candidate would have an easy time with those figures today. But then again, I am a desysopped admin. :-)) Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, we definitely need more candidates, I've been saying that forever.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I support a slight reduction in the required minimum to 67%. However, a more important and useful reform would be to set promotion as definite at that level and eliminate any "bureaucratic discretion" (beyond disqualifying clearly inappropriate votes). The process would run much more smoothly and fairly if we made this adjustment. In my opinion, confusion over what qualifies as consensus and the degree to which bureaucrats take power away from the community through their "discretion" are the main problems we have with RfA. Everyking 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs to be more vote county, discretion is a good thing, it lets sense enter the world of numbers. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Discretion also opens up the possibility to ignore consensus, whether this is declining to promote a near unanimous call to promote, or promoting someone with a significant opposition, all under the cover of calling it "discretion". I don't agree entirely with Everyking, in that I am in favor of a discretion range for some flexibility and giving the voters a motiviation to explain their reasoning, but I do think there should exist a lower bound: below this percentage, and above this percentage, the bureaucrat has no choice but to obey the will of the community, because RFA should ultimately be a community decision, not a bureaucrat decision merely advised by the community. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're still talking numbers. Numbers are, to all intents and purposes, a dead issue. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, that is simply not true. There is a long-standing tradition that 75%-80% is the threshhold for promotion, with some limited discretion allowed for by the bureaucrat within that range, and simply saying that it's dead is dead wrong. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just my observation. You're at liberty to disagree with it. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sjakkalle, this is no different than how we close an WP:AfD, should admins not have discretion when closing debates either? Wikipedia is based on discretion when judging consensus, without it we would be a democracy, which we are not. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On AFD the situation is different. First, we are then dealing with articles we present directly to the public, RFA are things which take place behind the scenes. Deleting an article which should not be deleted has a major and direct impact on the product we present. Failing to promote a candidate which one could argue ought to be promoted does not. Second, we have policies which say what type of article we can and should have, and what articles we should WP:NOT. To a certain degree, we have some objective policies which can be applied to articles when we determine when to delete and when not to delete. There is a lot of truth when we say that community consensus cannot override the verifiability policy for instance. But there are no policies saying what kind of people must not be supported, and must not be opposed on RFA. People have traditionally been free to make up any reasonable good faith criteria for supporting or opposing RFAs, and we cannot say that any of them are objectively better than another. Due to the greater subjective nature of judging an RFA candidate, and the lack of a firm policy which says "these people MUST be promoted, and these people MUST NOT be promoted", I think the discretion of the closer is lower. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding our public face, I disagree that admins are hidden behind the scenes, it is just not so. Regarding the fact AfD's are based on very clear policies, and RfA's are based on a very loose idea that a person should have trust, I agree you have a good point there. I still think that 'crats need discretion to do their jobs, otherwise we can replace them all with a bot. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we always need someone to discount illegitimate votes. That's also all we need them to do - individual bureaucrats don't make better decisions than the aggregate of the rest of us. Not that I'm necessarily that opposed to a range of discretion, as long as it's clearly defined. Haukur 15:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is quite likely that bureaucrats would make better decisions, if by "aggregate" you mean simply the percentage of people supporting. That number is more or less meaningless. All the thought which the community put into considering the candidate is lost in the process of arriving at that number, which bears only the vaguest relationship to the community's reasoned opinion. If the bureaucrat is permitted to aggregate opinions by reading them and weighing them, then the community's aggregate decision comes through better. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Admins are hidden behind the scenes in the sense that readers (not contributors) of the articles will never see the admins, or any other contributor for that matter. The RFA process is even further behind the scenes. I too am for discretion in some form, but I think the decision is ultimately up to the community, and that the discretion is to be used in close calls only. But good to see we could agree on one thing. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BC - there is one crucial difference between the way we handle RFA and the way we handle AFD, and that is the existence of DRV.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is RfA's DRV. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To an extent, but a key difference is that the same people can participate in AFD and DRV while this is not the case for RFA and RFAr. Haukur 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they're not.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To Haukurth, yes the same people can participate in an arbcom case, any involved party can. To radiant, it looks like they decided to trust the 'crats judgment in that case. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, replace "participate in" with "decide". Haukur 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they specifically said that they don't want the job of reviewing RFA decisions, as a principle.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then I guess people will have to wait for an admin to actually do something wrong before contesting a promotion then, if that happens at all. I am sure though that if the 'crats did something well beyond their range of discretion that arbcom would take interest, the fact is arbcom does not want to tread on 'crats range of discretion, that makes sense, but that does not mean they are not accountable if the exceed that range of discretion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony is right, it's not about numbers. In fact, Radiants proposal is broken - well thought out opposition by a small minority should create a significant stumbling block. Lowering the standard, in the current atmosphere, is just an excuse to ignore opposition to make it easier to win a popularity contest. It is the current system/atmosphere that is broken. SchmuckyTheCat 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The current atmosphere requires that people please everyone. Lowering the threshold means you have to please less people. Perhaps that will change the atmosphere. Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish "well thought out opposition" from "not so well thought out opposition" in a way that won't generate more heat / drama. Kusma (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that lowering the acceptance standard to 67% does not amount to lowering the standards for admins, because the vote in RfA is in no meaningful sense an accurate assessment of the likely standard of adminship. I think the only way we will get rid of the sense that RfA is a vote is to abolish voting. Sam Blacketer 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the only way to get rid of the sense that RfA is a vote is to limit the number of participants. With 50+ people, any discussion is going to look like a vote in the end, or in any case be more confusing than what we have now in the borderline cases. Kusma (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And put what in its place? The only difference between the process here and our deletion processes is that bureaucrat discretion is a lot more restricted than admin discretion. I don't think we have any sort of process here that does not involve some form of voting-like idea. -Amarkov moo! 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: As discussed previously, if the distribution of votes remains constant, then each 5% decrease in the threshold would lead to ~10% more admins being created. Of course, we can't really know whether people would still vote approximately the same way after such a change without trying it. Dragons flight 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just discuss the candidate's good points, and bad points, for the purpose of deciding whether he would be a good admin. Then trust the bureaucrats to not act like idiots.  This isn't rocket science. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, all our bureaucrats were confirmed at least 10 months ago. We have quite a group of people, including me, who were not here 10 months ago, and that makes it hard to convince many that they should trust the bureaucrats to not act like idiots, seeing as they've had no input as to who is a bureaucrat... -Amarkov moo! 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment it isn't possible for somebody to become a bureaucrat. No one could possibly vault the "90% consensus threshold" (call it what you like) that the community, or someone anyway, demands. No one with enough experience is that popular. I'm not complaining, by the way. I'm actually quite content with how my RfB is turning out. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. It's actually a good thing that all of our problems are interrelated, because that means everything doesn't have to break before a solution. -Amarkov moo! 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm against the idea of lowering the bar for adminship. A 75% threshold already says that 25% of the respondees don't trust the candidate with the tools.  That is a sizable minority of distrust.  If anything, the process should become more restrictive in terms of the percentages supporting. Johntex\talk 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While it would be nice if that were true, many people quite openly oppose, not because they don't trust the candidate, but because they don't think that he'll use admin tools enough, or don't think he'll use them in the right areas. 1/4 of the people is a sizable chunk for distrust, but that's not what all opposition is. -Amarkov moo! 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if that is true, their reasons are equally valid. You may not like their reasons, but they probably don't like your reasons for supporting either.  Candidates who receive more than 25-30% (discounting sockpuppetry) opposition to their candiacy should not be made admins.  Period. Johntex\talk 04:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Name
Wouldn't it make more sense to call this Requests for adminship and bureaucratship? Simply south 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the name is longer and more tortuous. Requests for bureaucratship redirects to RFA anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That and the fact that RfB is a minor process compared to RfA, in terms of the amount of candidates that go through it. --Deskana (ya rly)  14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

An idea for RfA
Leave it as it is, it is working great. If everyone loved it, that would be a sign something is wrong. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to the fullest. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see candidates with experience in as many namespaces as possible, but if someone stands out as particularly strong on one level, I'd be more than willing to not give a rat's ass about Person X's meager 7 Image edits and 2 Category Talk edits. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm largely in agreement with High. Three quarters of cases that come before us are not problematic--they are either clearly "yes" or "no".  It is only a handful of cases where it's even a little tricky, and no matter how we change the system, there will be borderline cases.  Tough cases make bad law, as the saying goes.  I say let's leave it alone.    Buck  ets  ofg  15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't see the problem because the problem doesn't come here - that's the problem. The majority of editors who could make fine use of the tools won't put themselves through this abusive, adversarial process because it ends up as a popularity contest for a few gnomes who participate in the pet projects du jour. SchmuckyTheCat 15:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Schmucky is right. I've been asked by others to put in for RfA, but no way am I going to stick my head in that meat grinder. It's too much of a hassle to go through the process only to get opposing votes (and let's not kid ourselves, they are votes) because of "not enough image experience" or whatever the flavor-of-the-month objection happens to be. Raymond Arritt 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that the only image page editing you've done is to create two political anti-logos, incorrectly tagged 'public domain', to use in a userbox, yes, you probably would be opposed on that point, but that's not necessarily an indication of RFA being broken. If you get a bit of image experience I'll definitely consider you for adminship. Haukur 17:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said.... ;-) (Oh, and they are PD as far as I know, since I drew them myself styled after commonly-used logos for the parties. I'll gladly correct or delete them if that doesn't make them PD.) Raymond Arritt 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the original logos are copyrighted your images count as copyrighted derivative works. (I don't know all there is to know but I think that's right.) Haukur 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, since their copyright status is in doubt I'll just delete them. (I know, this is off-track of the present discussion, but I appreciate the clarification.) Raymond Arritt 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Raymond arritt and Haukurth have worked together to make my point. Most objections to the current system seem to be based off the idea that people get rejected when they think they should not. Of course you are going to be opposed if you don't have enough experience. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No! Why should Raymond arritt be required to have any image editing experience to be an admin?  That's exactly what is wrong. Involvement in some pet project does not answer the question: "would this user abuse the tools?" SchmuckyTheCat 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to poke fun at this aspect of the RFA-process in the RFA Candidate's Song with the line "Many fail and so might I (my role in portal talk's been small)", so I'm not unsympathetic. Still, there has to be a way of raising concerns, and once any such mechanism exists, there will be people who make silly complaints.  Perhaps regular participants in the process should be more vigorous in criticising frivolous opposes.  It strikes me that if something in the administrator-sphere needs reform, it's an orderly system of recall.   But that's a whole other kettle of fish.    Buck  ets  ofg  19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I largely think that the current system is just fine. If someone's RfA is so close that having a handful of edits in the image namespace is what swings someone to "oppose", I'm guessing that there aren't enough reasons to swing someone to "support", and the image bit is just the straw that broke the camel's back.


 * I agree with this. Leave it alone, its not broken. Johntex\talk 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we all seem to opining our opinions, let me say that I don't agree with it. Do something different for goodness sakes.  Think critically and brainstorm about how it can be improved.  And then actually do it.  Please.  --Iamunknown 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA archives
How comes the years cannot be edited when adding an archive, rather the whole page has to be edited? Simply south 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a magic word that gets rid of the edit links but I can't see it, so I'm not sure.  James086 Talk &#124;  Email 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
This is what should happen after every RFA. That was a great bureaucrat discussion. This would help with making RFA not a total vote. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good chance to pimp my proposal for tweaking RfA closures. ChazBeckett 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good proposal. Not perfect, but a definite improvement of perception, at the very least. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly and Simple reform idea
If adminship is 'not a big deal' why not just grant it to anyone that asks for it who has

1,000 in each of the following:


 * main space edits
 * main talk space edits (and is obviously interacting, not just playing edit count games)
 * user talk space edits
 * Wikipedia space edits

250 each of:


 * Wikipedia talk space edits (and is obviously interacting, not just playing edit count games)

50 each of:


 * Template space (regular/talk combined)
 * Image space (regular/talk combined)

And the following:

6+ months of history

If nominated by a person with a similar status, and 10 editors in good standing endorse the nomination: promoted. Easy to give, easy to take away, harder to earn.

If a self-nomination, 15 editors in good standing endorse.

If someone doesn't meet this, they go through the normal (current) RFA procedure.

The idea being that this person is experienced, has a clean track record, and has invested half a year of work into the project. No one can get it earlier than 6 months out this way. That works out to be about 1,100 edits a month, for 6 months. In likelihood, most people wouldn't qualify till, what, 8-10 months out? If adminship and the buttons aren't a big deal...

Anyone who doesn't meet the qualifications would just default to the standard (current) RFA procedure, or if they want to try for adminship before the 6 month limit. The idea now being that, if the person doesn't quite qualify for whatever factor maybe it is a darn good idea for a full review of them. To stop using stub sorting or RC-patrol from padding numbers, the main space talk page requirement will stop that (since those are always lower from what I've seen on RFA talk). The ultimate idea is that experienced people who aren't misbehaving should get the bit.

Note: the 'legitimate' caveat on the bans/blocks is so that someone getting a mistaken/reversed block (it happens!) in their block log isn't blacklisted from RfA. The block log would have to say, i.e., "Bad block, mistaken block, etc." - Denny  ( talk ) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont know about the template space but otherwise its a smashing idea, SqueakBox 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone who meets those requirements not been passed? For that matter, how many people actually meet those requirements? -Amarkov moo! 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't, and I have been an admin for more than a year. Kusma (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I sure don't, even if you include a year of anonymous edits and longer editing under a previous account name. Moreover, any criteria based solely on edit count doesn't take into account just how easy it is for an admin to break things so thoroughly that it takes a developer restoring from backups to repair it. &mdash;Cryptic 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll use myself as an example - I got blocked 7 months ago for somewhat bullshit reasons that weren't overturned due to it being a short block - does that mean I get the shaft in your proposal forever? One strike and you're out? I can think of people with an even cleaner block log than mine who'd get screwed on this, and their blocks were over 15 months ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably in such a circumstance you'd go through the RfA process as at present. My understanding of the proposal is that it's sort of like an Advanced Placement test; you satisfy these criteria, and you don't have to go through RfA. Raymond Arritt 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. - Denny  ( talk ) 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why simply looking at a block log is a poor idea. 3RR, short ones for disruption - those happen to even the most respected editors. When you start getting major blocks for edit warring, 24 hour+ blocks for disruption, those are the problem areas. Not to mention the poor guy who starts out as a vandal, and reforms into a great editor - now he has to go through the RfA process too, which simply becomes the short bus on the public transit line to adminship, whether he belongs there or not. It's a better idea than what's currently happening, and I would support it even if it would screw a good number of worthy candidates, but I think we have to be a little more aware of the differences between blocks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This question of a legitimate block is troubling and I agree with Jeff. Sometimes you get blocked. These numbers are also rather high; I doubt I meet them myself. Mackensen (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To show how absurdly high these requirements are... CSCWEM fails them on two counts. -Amarkov moo! 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is that? - Denny  ( talk ) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, 50,000 odd edits. -Amarkov moo! 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I just checked my RfA edit count... I think I failed on a couple of those. Too bad, too; I thought I was a pretty good admin... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck, I don't meet them, and I've been an admin for almost a year and a half, and have over 29,000 edits... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail 3 of the criteria, but Jimbo fails 7 of the 8. -- Nick  <sup style="color:blue;">t  20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sad to say, I also must resign. I haven't spent nearly enough time spamming user talk pages apparently.  Dragons flight 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the basic idea was that lets make RfA be a means to empower experienced people to use the tools, based on their likelihood of abusing it. That way, rather than a pointless social gauntlet (as many here seem to say it is now), it would be based on their experience rather than social popularity/trivial things. Perhaps if the numbers were more reasonable, and the block limit was gone? One moment, editing. - Denny  ( talk ) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. Is this better? - Denny  ( talk ) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A block limit isn't a poor idea, but as long as blocks are differentiated I doubt anyone could reasonably complain that much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that arbitrary numbers aren't necessarily helpful. I also don't see the advantage of a two-tier process. Are those who don't meet the criteria "inferior" admins? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it just means that the community had questions about them. Its like wondering if theres a difference between an admin who passed the current system with 100% vs. someone who passed at 69%. Is one a better admin than another? It shouldn't matter. Once they get the bit, the only thing that matters is what they do with it, right? The idea being: work hard, keep your nose clean, and if people think you're trustworthy: here, you're an admin. Go kill a backlog. You've done good, no need to socially pummel you at a beauty pageant. Now, lets say someone doesn't quite qualify for this: the community reviews you, full RFA. Simple, fair. - Denny  ( talk ) 20:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How does this look with more reasonable counts for experience, and no restrictions via blocks? Keep in mind, this is an idea to fix RfA by simply allowing qualified people to not get hurled into the meat grinder, who are experienced AND endorsed. Its not a free pass. :) - Denny  ( talk ) 20:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I had 3254 total edits when I was nominated for adminship -- and that was actually high for the day. This proposal would mandate a bare minimum of 4350 edits. Frankly I see this as just another example of edit counting as a proxy for a real evaluation of an editor's qualifications. Again, edit counts mean nothing. I've seen editors make 10,000 edits in a month, without proving anything about their qualifications for adminship. I don't even look at edit counts to evaluate candidates; they tell you nothing that you can't tell by things you will have to look at to evaluate the candidate anyway. You can tell so much more from a candidate's user page and user talk page than you can from their edit count totals anyway. The whole concept of using edit counts for any purpose at all on Wikipedia is broken from the start. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Just to open a whole 'nother shitstorm: define "editor in good standing". How much would it suck if we overhaul the entire RfA process so it isn't a popularity contest (or whatever it's being called), but then have arguments over this largely nebulous term. Is it restricted to admins? Editors who have been around for a while? What about editors who have been around, but have a few blocks in their logs? (which sounds disgusting) I think we're trading one pain-in-the-ass perpetual argument for another one... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I had 1400 edits when I got through in 2004. A lot of them were pretty weak too. Edit counts don't matter. Mackensen (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My impression from those who have been around a while is that edit counts didn't matter a couple of years ago, but they do now. Raymond Arritt 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And just what has changed about being an administrator since 2004 that makes edit counts important when they weren't then? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. My guess would be "nothing", but that's just a guess. Raymond Arritt 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes nothing has changed that makes it important most likely. Here is my theory on why people think edit count is important: People have the idea that edit count means experience and experience means understanding of Wikipedia policies. So by this logic, little edit count means little experience which means little understanding of Wikipedia policies. Fun  pika  21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This would just encourage rampant editcountitis. At present, editcountitis is tempered by the fact that real people are going over the contributions, and they will bring up issues of count inflation. Also, some people just don't care about the edit counts at all (like me), and so we examine the candidates' other qualifications. But an automatic sysopping for meeting 1,000 edits in a few places is a terrible idea. I could easily run out and make 1,000 trivial edits in each namespace and qualify for this, and since it's supposed to be an automatic bit-granting process, nobody would even be able to call bullshit on it! -- Cyde Weys 20:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er... it still has to be endorsed by others. The idea is to grant the bit to people who have put in the time and work, kept their noses clean, and haven't egregiously screwed up, and that a decent number say that, "Yep, he's good for it," without having to throw all the people in front of the current RfA truck. - Denny  ( talk ) 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why my idea has edit counts
Simple: what I keep hearing is that the beauty pageant that RfA currently function as is bad, wrong, and so forth. My take on it was, if people have demonstrated that they are actually working on the encyclopedia as working editors, they obviously have an understanding of how it works, and should work over time if by osmosis if nothing else. Since the entire point of the Wikipedia is the articles, the Main talk page edit requirement would be especially to show that they not only edit, but take part in the discussion of articles. That one value is the hardest it seems to rack up over time, but its probably the single most important. People that discuss article improvement and/or deficits. The counts, plus a minimum 6 month wait for the endorsed and 'expedited' adminship is to allow quality people who otherwise might not be willing to subject themselves to RfA abuse to get bits to help out. In other words... if you do that much demonstratable work on the encyclopedia, you obviously know what you're doing as far as the encyclopedia itself. The Wikipedia talk page requirement means you know your way at least passably around the 'back end'. The fact that 10-15 other experienced people endorsed you means that you are trustworthy. Adminship is no big deal. This would demonstrate that, and allow good people to get it who otherwise would never be in the current RfA pool.

Others, without the count, or for whatever reason with 'black marks' can still do the normal RfA route, and get in that way. I.e., if a great 4-month person ran, he could conceivably get in with old-style RfA. But someone who maybe works slower, but would still be a good admin, could rack up the demonstrateable experience in 12 months. The whole point though is that there is no way apparently to 'fix' RfA as it stands--too contentious! So, lets make it what the admin pages say: no big deal. - Denny  ( talk ) 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not discuss all this here? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss it here? Christopher Parham (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss it here and there? Why not discuss it everywhere? Why not discuss it every day, why not, why not, why not, I say. Why not discuss green eggs and ham, Why not, why not, Oh Sam I am? Splash - tk 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, man... *wipes tears from eyes* I've missed you, Splash. Haukur 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only you can prevent forest fires, Sam-I-am. -- Cyde Weys  23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, why not. Here's why: I put up a proposal there and don't want to duplicate it. I'd really like to hear why it's idiotic or otherwise problematic. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Setting numerical goals or creating a "checklist" for sysopping is a bad idea, because it will encourage gaming the system. There's no end to the amount of havoc an admin account can wreak in the wrong hands - creating a backdoor method for sysopping, using defined numerical goals, would merely enable such abuse, in my opinion. MastCell Talk 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If you look at it from a different perspective: if we do go for a purely robotic system of granting adminship, edit counts might be the right thing for all the reasons they're a wrong thing right now, where we're trying to actually use humans to do the determination. This might also dovetail nicely with some ideas jimbo has been playing with.. --Kim Bruning 01:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This RfA reform idea is repulsive. This values pure edit counts above just about anything else. This would easily result in people being able to game the system to their favor. Good grief, this is editcountitis gone mad! --Durin 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Durin. --Deskana (ya rly)  01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I do, too. Whenever there's an objectively defined system there will be people who try to game it. I think a lot could be said for a less objective system, where we count on a fairly small, accountable group of well-trusted people to do the right thing. (Maybe something like a rotating "board of electors" drawn from the current admin corps.) Someone gets nominated, the group looks carefully at their record including but not only their edit count and says yeah, this does or doesn't look like someone we can trust with the buttons. Probably not realistic because there will be allegations of cabalism and the like but it's an idea that intrigues me. Ah, if only I ran the world...Raymond Arritt 01:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that one, Raymond. Except when you consider RfAs which have been brought down by newer users complaining about incivility, biting, things like that. You would have to trust this specially elected group to look through every single edit the user has ever made. – Riana ऋ 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. I have 4965 mainspace, 1446 talk, 1291 Wikipedia, and 989 user talk. I have 392 Wikipedia talk edits. I have 545 template and 158 image. Darn it. Let me start welcoming more users (currently I only welcome if they rm my speedy tags). I'll come back once I've made 11 more edits. Otherwise, I'm all for it (obviously, as I almost qualify). hbdragon88 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah... now the criteria are too loose. I would have met all these requirements back in February if I liked article writing slightly more, and I should not have been an admin then. I'm still embarassed looking at how I behaved over WP:CHILD back in December, yet I managed 32 people supporting me. Anyway, see the problem? All strict numerical standards will be too hard or too easy. -Amarkov moo! 06:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh...*hunts back* that was the original proposal? Yikes.  Yeah, that does sound quite steep.  I mean, I mostly do uncontroversial work - stuff that normally doesn't require talk discussion. hbdragon88 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hell, these hard numbers would prevent a large number of people who are well qualified to be admins from becoming admins. After two years here, I still wouldn't qualify. I only have 473 main talk edits, less than half the required 1000. So I'd have to spend ***4*** years here before becoming an admin? This is insanity. --Durin 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a negative count. 3 months (ok, that's positive) and then, no blocks, no vandalism no bad stuff etc after the first 5 days (give people room to learn ;-) )... and they must request it. Only problem there is that a human would be doing the determination, and I was actually sort of starting to like the idea of bots. :-) --Kim Bruning 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be a LOT more in favor of RfA being abolished in its entirety. Instead, replace it with a panel of 4-5 people appointed by Jimbo to *liberally* give out the admin bit. No more voting. No more endless discussion about how to reform it. No more endless backlogs for admin tasks. No more ridiculous bickering on "it's broken" vs. "No it isn't" vs "Duck season" vs. "Rabbit season". Just a bloody coup, and be done with it. Adminship isn't a big deal. RfA's gone insane. --Durin 13:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. I disagree with using edit counts in this way (though I qualify on all counts except the Image one). Some sort of predetermined initial barrier to nomination (followed by an RfA) has been discussed before, and all it really does is stop the obviously unsuitable candidates. Spotting the candidates that look OK, but aren't, is the hard thing, and something that RfA is sometimes good at, and sometimes not. And image work is often done either at Commons or after someone becomes an admin - tagging images for speedy deletion doesn't show up in contributions. Carcharoth 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed?
Why is there a tag in this section:

The community will grant administrator status only to trusted users who understand policy. Therefore, nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy and knowledgeable about policy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia.

I was tempted to remove it, but I wasn't sure. Is this a joke, vandalism, or is it legitimate? Where are we going to find a source for that if the person who added it is serious? Acalamari 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a misplaced venting of a user's disgruntlement with some or other admin's action. Remove. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the citation for "official face" too. Remove the sentence along with the tag. :-P --Kim Bruning 01:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another user has removed them. :) Acalamari 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed that whole phrase because the Foundation has made explicitly clear that administrators are not the "official face" of Wikipedia, and indeed, are not authorized to speak on its behalf. -- Cyde Weys 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA is never going to change
Because let's face it, we've been through 87 archives of this talk page, and several polls that indicate that the vast majority of users is unhappy with RFA, and there never has been a proposal that people actually liked and was not opposed on principle. If RFA could change, it would have been changed by now. I remain of the opinion that people posting here should instead find a good candidate to nominate. In fact, I guess I'll go do that now. Ciao! Radiant! 08:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Take heart. RFA has changed since you were adminned nearly two years ago, and it will continue to change. --Tony Sidaway 08:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Organically? Oh yes, definitely. Through discussion and proposals on this page? I think not. But thanks for the heart :) Radiant! 08:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard to make it change due to our methods; we just get bogged down in stalemated argument. We could force some kind of resolution about this if we were willing to put the issue to a vote: yes, it should change, or no, it should not. (I suppose some kind of poll would be required in advance of this to see if there's approval for even having the vote.) If yes won, then a variety of options for reform could be presented, and the one with the most support could be put in place for at least a trial period, and then another vote could be held, if necessary, about whether to keep that system or revert to the old one. This would all be a bit demanding and probably rather tumultuous, but it would provide actual results and advance our understanding about what works best, and it would be a way to effectively represent people's feelings about the issue. Of course, I'm sure there are other ways this could be conducted beyond the outline I presented. Everyking 10:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do need more effective democratic procedures to change policy where discuss-until-consensus-is-achieved doesn't scale. That said it should be noted that even though many or most of us want to change RFA we often want to do so in contradictory ways. You and I want to get rid of bureaucratic discretion altogether. Some other people want to greatly increase bureaucratic discretion. All of us would probably be happier with the current system than a change in the direction opposite to what we want. Haukur 10:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Haukur has a good point. Judged by the many debate pages here, there are about an equal users who want to move RFA to the "left" as there are who want to move it to the "right", and as a result it remains in the "center". As someone stated on my user page, "A good compromise is when both sides end up equally unhappy." Radiant! 10:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true; voting yes would be a gamble, because then an option you hate even more than the current system could win in the next stage of the vote. But with a trial period system in place, people who opposed it (from any direction) could vote against it to revert back to the old system. So the effect would be either we'd find a system we're satisfied with, or at least gain the experience to know that we don't like the new system that was tried. Everyking 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the procedures are a problem, really, except insofar as the more formal ones have failed to scale. What you have called "organic" change above has occurred, and I don't think we should overlook this.  Firstly, in 2005 the rigid 80% bar was considered unbreachable, to the extent that my own RFA, at 80% with quite a few don't knows, was considered worthy of question.  Well the current lot of bureaucrats have made it plain in their decision that numbers and votes aren't the game any more.  It's impossible to overstate this change.  In due course it will change the adminship selection process beyond all recognition, though we must show patience while the culture change permeates the consciousness of all involved. --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again (from elsewhere) Tony, you're taking one RfA (Danny's) and using it as proof that the system has changed. Even if it is proof (which I highly doubt) the fact remains that users are constantly, unendingly, raising the bar to adminship. Bureaucrat discretion isn't going to change that. --Durin 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a problem with "raising the bar". Unreasonable opposition to promotion can be discounted.  Reasonable opposition cannot be discounted.  There is nothing wrong with reasonable scrutiny of admin candidates, and there is nothing wrong with rejecting poor candidates. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if RfA moves either way. I believe that we currently combine the disadvantages of a voting system with the disadvantages of a discussion system, and so I think both directions are better than the status quo. Kusma (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have put forward something here – . Invite comments. &mdash; Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony - it is clear that the bureaucrats are increasingly arrogating to themselves the power to decide whether a person should be an admin or not, while paying lip-service to the concept of community consensus. As it happens, I am entirely happy with lowering the percentage bar to admin promotion, or, even better, abolishing the bar in favour of a proper discussion of reasons why a particular candidate should not be an admin. Adminship really is and should be no big deal, and this stupid quasi-political process makes it into one.

The main piece that is missing is a proper de-admining process to deal with the relatively few admin candidates who get their bit and then cause problems with it - and it is often the same names that recur time and again, parading their adminship as a badge of office, bashing newbies, blocking with little or no warning, or using their admin powers in disputes in which they are involved. RFC and ArbCom are just too slow and unwieldy - we need a more responsive, less formal system, under which admins can receive escalating warnings about transgressive behaviour and finally have their admin bit taken away until people are happy that the problems will not recur. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And so the circle is complete. Unfortunately, given the current state of the community, I do not believe it is possible to create a community de-adminship process that will not turn into a place to get revenge for axe-grinders and trolls. Radiant! 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a desysopping process. Some editors may find it problematic that it's part of the dispute resolution process, but this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it isn't effective. One sysop has even been desysopped twice after succeeding at RFA each time.  In the circumstances, it's hard to argue that it doesn't work or that it's less effective at removing unsuitable admins than RFA is at creating them. --Tony Sidaway 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (oops, I meant a community desysop process, as I believe ALoan was suggesting that we need)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, one way to do desysopping might be like the points system on drivers licences... adminship *was* supposed to be an editing license, right? ;-) --Kim Bruning 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has demonstrated a willingness in the past to de-sysop, or at least reprimand, administrators who have show consistently poor judgement. I'm unconvinced that our exisiting dispute resolution mechanisms are insufficient. One point that's come up in several recent cases is that people aren't using those mechanisms, preferring resolution by noticeboard, which rarely if ever works. This may be a symptom or a cause; I'm not sure which. On another note, I agree with ALoan that the existing RfA process is politicized and asking the wrong questions. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, like I said I was reffering to "community deopping" (which, incidentally, I do not consider a good idea). At any rate, I tend to agree with you re dispute resolution mechanisms; I haven't seen all that many RFCs or RFMs that had a useful outcome. There's now something called 'enforced mediation', I'm not sure how that'll turn out yet. Radiant! 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the sound of "community deopping". Too much like a whipping post, and would almost certainly encourage the idea that deopping is a punishment.  Let the dispute resolution mechanism handle this.  It's proven and efficient. --Tony Sidaway 14:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * RFC is proven and efficient now? I had the idea it was also too much like a whipping post. I don't have any particularly better ideas, but it seems to me that below RFAr, most DR doesn't have all that good a track record.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Arbcom is certainly not efficient. I'd love to see the crats decide to handle their whole job instead of half of it.  Adminship should be easily given and easily taken away.  Why spend time arguing about how someone might behave with the tools, when we can so easily instead hand them out liberally and see how editors actually behave with them?  Friday (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment crats don't have the power to de-sysop, only stewards do. What you're implying (correct me if I'm wrong), is giving bureaucrats the power to recommend de-sysoping outside of the formal dispute resolution process. Mackensen (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If they asked a steward to desysop, the steward would do it. People keep insisting Arbcom or Jimbo is the only way to accomplish this, but they're only saying that because those are the only methods that have been used so far.  The crats are increasingly willing to use their own judgment, not the community's, on promoting.  People would be far more comfortable with such liberal promotion if the crats were willing to step in and de-sysop when needed too.  They'd probably want to ask the community for a recommendation, of course.  And, to prevent bureaucratic paralysis, I'm further suggesting that the crats just start doing this, rather than putting it up for a vote or whatever passes for consensus these days.  Friday (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a new idea to me, but at first hearing it sounds pretty good. --Tony Sidaway 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a nice idea until we have a host of easily obtained admin sockpuppets doing one of the three irreversible and extremely harmful things that admins can do, at which point all of those liberally given admins will be desysopped and we will go back to a more difficult system. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there are more than three if you unfold it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this can easily sound about as ridiculous as letting anyone edit an encyclopedia. :) Friday (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All encyclopedia edits are fully reversible. The only harmful thing an editor could do is publish libellous statements or personal information that they got from somewhere else. If you want to liberally give out admin powers, we would need: a) many more oversighters, b) super-admins that are not reversible by other admins, c) normal-admin powers slightly restricted, d) software changes. (also several policy changes and natural consequences, these are just the basic logistical problems). —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as you have a point there, the whole reason we have a separation between admins and editors is that an admin can do much more damage than a regular editor; we should assume good faith, but not stick or heads in the sand (or any other orifice that you can think of). I still think there should be that separation, and an automated (or even semi-automated) system brings the two that much closer together. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but still. We have to give RFA some credit - it still hasn't produced an admin who *intentionally* tries to harm the site. And, yes, a tech-savvy malicious admin could do enormous damage though understandably we don't like to discuss that much. Haukur 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * RfA (though possibly pre-RfA) has produced admins that publicly release personal information and deleted pages. It is more effective, however, not only because it has higher scrutiny on candidates than liberal promotions, but also because RfA is not going to produce 50 admin sockpuppets unless multiple workers are being paid as a full-time job to create them. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oversight has eliminated much of the potential for that kind of abuse. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it has produced admins who were de-sysopped and later tried to intentionally harm the site. You're right, of course, that they didn't start malicious–there was nothing at RfA, furthermore, that indicated that they would eventually run off the rails. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Simplest possible crat overhaul
To flesh out slightly the idea I threw out above.. What I see as the simplest thing that could possibly work would be something like: Crats hand out admin tools liberally to those who seek them. There should be some opportunity for community objection so that editors who've already displayed problematic behavior don't get them, but nothing resembling RFA. Perhaps some objective standards in terms of (sigh) tenure or (double sigh) edit count. Or maybe they need a nomination from a trusted editor who's willing to vouch for them.

Then, the crats should remove them either 1) upon seeing a prima facie case for misuse of the tools or maybe 2) upon community showing a lack of confidence in the admin in question. Perhaps 1 is already covered by emergency desysop procedures and the crats should focus on 2. This puts most of the effort where it should be: discussing those candidates whose use of the tools has been called into question. This might turn as ugly as RFA sometimes gets, but I still see this moving of the effort as an improvement. Friday (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On the face of it that's not terribly different from what I proposed here. I didn't envision a role for bureaucrats in de-sysoping, but that may be the logical outgrowth of increased bureaucratic discretion (or not). Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Crats judge consensus on adminship. Consensus can change.  We've been avoiding the logical conclusion of these ideas so far.  It makes no sense to me to trust them with the front half of the process and not the other half. Friday (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Having seen this proposal in full, I think that "[bureaucrats] hand out admin tools liberally to those who seek them" subject to community objection doesn't sound bad. However there is a higher potential for "sleeper" admins by this method, because of these ease with which a malicious person could create many socks and get them sysopped. It sounds like a promising line of thought, subject to that problem (and any others that occur to me as I digest my lunch). --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The simplest possible overhaul would be for the bureaucrats to change the criteria that they use to judge consensus. They already do so occasionally, as in Danny's RFA; I have asked here here if they plan to continue to do so in the future. CMummert · talk 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question has also been asked and discussed somewhat on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard, which may be a slightly more logical place for a sitewide change/clarification. -- nae'blis 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to be more specific about what exactly constitutes "liberally". Depending on what you mean by that word, this can be an unmitigated disaster. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Head over to Admin_coaching/Requests and offer to help a couple of the 55 people who currently await a coach. If other sysops clean out that page before you get to it, look up Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls and drop a note to a few of the 993 people there! Durova Charge! 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've mentioned the category more than once in responses to "we need more admins" and the like, but I wasn't even aware of the admin coaching thing until fairly recently. I'll try hitting that up soon, time permitting. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the use of that? I can coach anybody who's reading with a few lines: write stuff, be nice to people, have a broad awareness of and respect for policy. Taking it beyond that raises suspicions in me that this coaching could be something like training people to play politics. Everyking 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I think that may be a little unfair. I ran an Editor Review a couple months before my RfA ran, and got plenty of good feedback about how I could adjust my behavior (such as actually warning vandals, rather than just reverting with "rvv" as my edit summary). I see the coaching as, more or less, the same thing; someone showing some interest in being more involved, and wanting to know what they need to improve in order to achieve that goal. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious that Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls has outlived its usefulness as it's way too long to do anything with. I suppose a bot could be used to remove the inactive accounts, but then that'd be editing their userpages. Never mind, I'll stick with the coach list and possibly high edit count list.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reform
The question is: Is reform needed - the system seems to work OK as it is, i.e. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!".

I've had a read through the current proposals, which, interesting as they seem, might not be so good in practice... Anyhow... it's certainly an interesting proposal.... --<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b> <i style="color:blue;">talk</i> 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the admin community were keeping on top of the requests for advice from editors who want to develop into sysops, then I might see the need for RFA process reform. But I'm very disappointed to see so much traffic to this page while so many people who want to get mopified aren't getting the pointers and tips that would set them on the path to adminship.  Our first priority ought to be coaching and outreach.  It really isn't a big commitment to serve as a touchstone for half a dozen people who want to get mopified.  The effort that's gone into these procedural discussions probably could have generated 100 new sysops under the existing system.  Durova Charge! 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is really no need for training for someone to be an admin. Anyone who should be an admin either a) is going to do just fine at RfA without any "coaching"; b) or is going to be opposed for reasons totally unsolvable by coaching. People don't spend time helping the people on this list because a) they do not see why it is at all necessary or appropriate; and b) many want to be admins because they think it is some awesome privileged position, and they want the power, would be happy to mechanically inflate their edit counts, etc. Anyone else is quite capable of becoming an admin without any coaching. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately this works better in practice. I've got a fine group of people who are interested in wikisleuthing and have been doing excellent work in places such as WP:COIN and WP:SSP where their assistance is basically keeping the boards afloat.  They touch bases with me when a page needs semiprotection or personal attacks seem to merit a userblock or to when a situation calls for experienced advice.  Sometimes I'll point them toward article space, encouraging them to work a page up to GA.  It all depends on their strengths and interests.  These are basically independent people who operate well on their own and perhaps they'd become sysops eventually anyway, but I think both they and Wikipedia are better off with a little bit of mentorship.  Durova Charge! 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The system works, but only in the sense of that it does something. It doesn't actually do what we need it to do. (That is to say: it does not give extended editing capabilities to trusted users quickly enough).

Admin to regular user ratio is at an all time low; ratio of new admins added to admins leaving the project is now roughly 1:1 and declining (so if current trends continue, we shall start losing admins faster than that we gain new ones); per-admin workload has doubled since last year; and I'm getting reports of admins now starting to cut corners just to get the work done, and then lying about it. :-/

--Kim Bruning 02:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We mustn't forget that it is not always immediately obvious why admins are urgently needed in some areas. There are large areas of the encyclopedia that operate just fine without admins hovering over things and keeping things running. There are people who manage to edit and do what they want to do, without any conflict, without needing admin tools, and without needing to do much more than occasionally ask admins for assistance in certain areas. If dedicated admins are needed for certain large backlogs, would it not make more sense to round up and organise existing admins (seeing if inactive admins are prepared to come out to semi-retirement to help) and tackle backlogs that way? There are records of organised collaboration among editors clearing immense backlogs, so can't admins be organised in a similar way? Or does it not work like that? Carcharoth 10:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Imagine having to do a request for license-holder assistance (and wait several days) to get to the supermarket anytime you forgot the beans. Now imagine having to make a request for admin assistance anytime you muck up a page move, or catch a vandal red-handed. Everyone decent should have that flag! --Kim Bruning 13:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there were some way to fix the page move issue I agree it would be a real help. One often overlooked benefit of the low admin percentage is that protecting pages actually works. No small number of "decent" editors get into edit wars. Yes, editing of protected pages by admins is wrong, and protecting pages to win a debate is wrong, but it's a pain to deal with when it does happen. If the admin percentage was ~ 50%, I'm sure there would be a lot more of it. CMummert · talk 13:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If we are quick to desysop anyone abusing the protection privilege, that won't stay a problem very long. Kusma (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The schism at RFA
As a fairly new Wikipedian (I began editing in December of 2006), I think I may be able to provide some insight into one of, if not the most salient, the underlying themes that the current discussions about RFA and RFA reform are focussing on. People seem to be divided into two camps: those that believe that article writing and development are the most important characteristics that qualify someone for adminship, and those that believe that the technical and repetitive maintenance of the encyclopedia are the stronger prerequisite. I'd like to point out that neither group would be capable of existing without the other. Wikignomes would have nothing to disambiguate, wikify, copyedit, or unvandalize if it weren't for the tremendous corpus of articles written and developed by the predominantly editing type of Wikipedian. Conversely, if it weren't for the behind the scenes labour of the gnomish sorts, the quality of the articles and integrity of the project would disintegrate rapidly. My viewpoint, which is becoming more robust the longer I spend on Wikipedia, is that there is a place and need for editors AND administrators from both groups and even the extremes. Rather than characterizing editors on what they do on Wikipedia, I think it would be valuable to emphasize the good that editors CAN do on Wikipedia if promoted to administrator. As for the vote/!vote issue, it boils down to the question that do I, a Wikipedia User, want Nominee to have the administrative capabilities? Whether I couch it in a support or oppose or a more extended analysis of how Nominee could help/hinder the project, the end result is that I have stated a positive or negative (or neutral) opinion on the matter and felt strongly enough to include it in the public record. I welcome any and all other analysis, and hope that I may have contributed constructively to the ongoing discussion.--Xnuala (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone overlooks the projectspace people group, and I don't understand why. -Amarkov moo! 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis on RfA voting and agree that those are the two main groups voting in RfAs. I would also like to add another group I see sometimes in RfAs a quite a bit on this talk page. This group says the we shouldn't worry about the mainspace contributions or the project space contributions. Instead we should ask ourselves if we can trust the user in question. If yes, support. If no, oppose. I have also noticed that they tend to be older (in time at Wikipedia) users. They also tend to be the main people who say that RfA is broken. This third group isn't as big as the other groups, but it still can influence voting sometimes. Captain   panda  02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the connection between Wikipedia age and this viewpoint is...hm. So much does boil down to trust...perhaps these experienced Wikipedians have seen different occasions where their trust was violated.--Xnuala (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A sociological study of Wikipedia -- that's a PhD thesis waiting to happen. &mdash; Dan | talk 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My job may be downsized this year...perhaps I should go back to school!--Xnuala (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting of note is this essay, User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia. According to it, RFA is more of a "middle ground" activity. An interesting model, but I think that orthodoxy and heresy are too strong words. They're just as rendering as the terms "inclusionist" and "deletionist."  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite interpret it like that. I see that the two camps are oversimplified on purpose, in order for greater clarity. Most editors may lean towards one side or another, but will have at least a mix of the two. As for the title, I see it as a sarcastic moniker for the attitudes of one camp towards the other; in short, a sensible mix of humorous irony and logical thought. —210 physicq  ( c ) 03:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, my request has not been completed yet please
Hello, I filed an applicaiton and it was voted already and I had 4 votes in my favour. It has been a few days now, Just curious how much longer I would have to wait, thanks! :) Requests for adminship/Ice201    --Ice201 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your RfA has not been transcluded on the main page, hence invalidating all four votes and requiring a restart on the RfA timer. —210 physicq  ( c ) 01:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to follow all the instructions on this page. The procedure may look a little complicated, but I promise you that if I managed to do it then anyone can. More importantly, and I am sorry to be the bearer of the bad news, I have to tell you that based on your level of experience on the English Wikipedia thus far, there is no way that your candidacy would be successful. I suggest that you spend more time editing, and read other users' RfAs for an example of what the community is looking for from candidates, before going ahead. I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. --Ice201 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yes...you are, of course, welcome to come back and try again in a few months, after taking the above advice. You're on the right track, so take in account Newyorkbrad's tips, combine it with your current editing pattern, and you'll be fine. Cheers, 210 physicq  ( c ) 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ice201, I've given a little bit more input on your talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)