Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 90

Another idea (less substantial change) - thread mode.
Have each RFA (in otherwise substantially the current format) preceded by a few days or so of freeform discussion leading up to it, so that people can all get on the same page rather than what one issue seemed to be with the previous format, which is tendency of people to vote and then their concern is later addressed but they don't come back to change it even though they might. This way any concerns that people have either way can hopefully be brought up and addressed before 'voting' opens. We keep trying to add various more or less structured formats, but i really think that adding a period of simple thread-mode discussion would be refreshing --Random832 03:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This idea isn't new, but I can find one potential weakness already: people have to come back to the RfA page twice. —210 physicq  ( c ) 03:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People are free to only participate in one or the other phase. This simply attempts to ensure that a thorough discussion/sanity check has occured before voting opens. --Random832 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No point. Block voters have already had their minds made up for them made up their minds even before the RfA is posted.  The only thing this will do is perhaps make it easier for waterfall voters (voters who try to vote with the consensus) to vote -- they will presumably be able to tell from the discussion whether or not to vote for or against.  Kelly Martin (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that important? Being able to look at the discussion and use that as a factor in whether or not to vote for or against? Say a discussion starts with 50 supports and 0 opposes, and ends at 60-10. It's a passing nomination, I suppose, but someone raised an issue that convinced half of the subsequent voters that the nomination shouldn't pass. Was it voter #49 who "waterfalled", or the tenth oppose? Yet it's "consensus" because of the overall tally. An exploration period would encourage a deeper evaluation of the nominee's background before anyone piles on. Dekimasu よ! 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will say something heretical here. The current support/oppose format works better for discussion. When I look at an RfA, I glance quickly at the support votes, read carefully the oppose votes, perhaps take a look at the questions section, and then decide what to do. And if you wanna say something to the stinky opposer of your favorite candidate, just start a thread under his vote (be polite though :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I support trying out a discussion period. Its implementation can't possibly prove as controversial or confusing as the current experiments. Dekimasu よ! 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Want to throw in contested opinions too? (fits with practically anything. :-) ) --Kim Bruning 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)  now to find a vict volunteer 

What should an RfA change do?
I think we need to To keep RfA readable and participation easy, we need a system that does not take more space than our old system (which is confusing enough in cases with more than 100 participants). If we make it hard for people to participate, we move further away from the idea of community consensus: only the people who can be bothered to go through the difficult system will participate, a probably poorly self-selecting sample. If we discuss points like whether something is or is not a valid oppose, we will spend a lot of time on the adminship process, making it even more of a big deal than it is now. The motivation for these changes seems to come from the ideology that "voting is evil", not addressing anything about the problem with RfA's output.
 * increase the number of candidates processed every week
 * make sure we promote more candidates than now

The main thing that is wrong with RfA from the view of the goals above is that opposes are given so much weight, making it very hard to pass. Fortunately, there is an easy remedy for this: lower the promotion threshold. Yes, RfA will still be a vote (or mostly a vote; see somewhere above where I argue for bureaucrats to try to use their discretion consistently instead of creating exceptions for a special class of people), but voting is a useful tool to find out whether the part of the community that opposes a certain action is small enough to have their concerns overruled. Kusma (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once more, the easy solution is to lower the bar from 75% to 67%.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that this is a straw poll, or anything (grin), but I would support dropping it to 2/3 (67%). (And honestly, I believe that the bureaucrats could make that choice by their own consensus at any time, since the 75% was created by a previous bureaucrat, as far as I can tell...) - jc37 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that 2/3 is a pretty reasonable numerical threshold. Kusma (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also in favor of 2/3, but only if it were applied evenly. It would be bad to have bureaucrats citing that number to pass some candidates while still failing others who get 70%+. Everyking 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also in favor of 2/3 but I think you still need to have some kind of a discretionary range (say 60%-70%). Above 70%, a bureaucrat would need to explain why a candidate was not getting promoted.  Below 60%, a bureaucrat would need to explain why a candidate was getting promoted.  Ideally, bureaucrats would just document the rationale for every promotion/failure so that the community would understand how the process was working or not working.  --Richard 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely in favour of a 67% threshold, if we decide to go by pure vote or part-vote/part-bureaucrat discretion. I feel a lower limit of 70%, with discretion in the 70-80% range is better. You may ask ... what difference does 3% make? Well, it requires that the support ratio be slightly greater than 2:1. Then again, 75% is a safer percentage that's bound to result in less controversy, less quibbling over results, and less bad blood between editors. To increase the # of candidates and successful candidates, the easiest solution is: nominate more editors. No change in format is really needed for that. -- Black Falcon 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything "wrong" with simple voting?
Is there anything wrong with simple voting?  Majorly   (hot!)  09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of things. But all the other options are even worse. Haukur 10:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has not evolved properly from when it was a vote. If it had, it would have lost the sections, the tally, the voting. We still have them, yet it is supposed to be a discussion. People don't want to move away from old ideas which simply do not work any more.  Majorly   (hot!)  11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * RfA isn't supposed to be discussion. It is supposed to be an easy way to determine who gets the admin bit. Kusma (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An easy way to do this would be to randomly assign the bit to users. No, RFA is at heart a discussion of the merits of granting adminship to a candidate. That it has sometimes been mistaken for a vote is a bit of a shame, and it's what we're trying to fix now. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what you think. Perhaps people have been treating RfA as a vote because they are wise enough to see that voting is far superior to using an RfC style method to determine an answer to a yes/no question when many people participate. Consensus does not scale, and discussion easily turns RfA into a monumental time-sink, all just due to a misunderstanding that makes people think that voting processes are inherently bad. Kusma (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that voting processes are inherently bad, it's that they're not very useful for reaching consensus. If you want to overturn our Consensus policy, that's fine.  But for now we're looking at ways  to get consensus on whether someone should be an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not. I am looking for a good method to determine who should be an admin. I do not care at all whether that method involves consensus or magical wiki fairy dust. It should be workable, fair, not too much effort for the participants, and produce many good admins. Consensus is a tool, we are not forced to use it if other tools do a better job. Kusma (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Voting would not be a useful method for determining who should be an administrator. Our problems of factionalism around RFA have arisen from the tendency to treat the process as a vote.  The hostility of the process means that we're currently promoting slightly fewer administrators than at the same time last year, despite the growth of the community and the growth of the task of maintaining the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The hostility seems to be based in the discussion aspects (the voting rationales), not the votes, though. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'll leave it there. You and I seem to have irreconcilably different views of what Wikipedia decision-making is about. --Tony Sidaway 11:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Per my comments earlier on this page ("RFA is not a vote...yeah, right"), the question to focus on is "Who is really responsible for making the decision? The community or the bureaucrats?"

If it is the community that is making the decision, then some variation of voting with supermajorities and vote discounting is the way to go. It's not a straight majority vote or even a straight supermajority vote but it is still a vote at its core.

If it is the bureaucrat that is making the decision, then the "!vote" is just input to the decision and the bureaucrat could make the decision based solely on the merits of the support/oppose reasons without counting the number of people with the same opinion. Now, a bureaucrat might wish to consider the opinion of the community in making his decision but, in this view, the bureaucrat is not "determining the will of the community" but only giving weight to "the opinion of the community".

Consider this scenario... what if 30% of RFA !voters said "Oppose, failure to use edit summaries more than 60% of the time"? Should this candidate pass or fail? What if that 30% was 30% of 200 votes? 60 users opposing! I know this is an extremely contrived example but the point is... What is important to you? The quality of the opinion, the percentage of opposes or the actual number of opposes?

--Richard 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll say it again: one comment, giving valid and serious doubts about a person's suitability to be an administrator, may be enough to make the determination. Forget voting.  Voting cannot do what we need. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I reject the notion that we can predetermine what opinions are relevant, or even determine what opinions are currently relevant for a specific candidate by any means other than the support/oppose division in a specific RfA. The hypothetical example of something extremely great or terrible being discovered by the last opiner is a reason for relisting, not a reason for deciding on the basis of that opinion.  Any other decision algorithm makes the bureaucrats the master of the community, not the servant of the community.  Since Wikipedia is not a tyranny, the crats should be the servants of the the community.


 * As to how the support/oppose division should be measured, it should be measured in the percentage ration of the unique supporters/opposers among members of the wikipedia community. (Sockpuppets and banned users are excluded, everyone else has the right to an opinion, and their opinion is valid.)  If the decision is 3/1, 30/10, or 300/100 is not relevant; all of them are a 3:1 ratio.  If the ratio is 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, ... is relevant.  GRBerry 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In essence, Tony trusts the b'crats to recognize the significance of a minority opinion whereas GRBerry wants the b'crats to go back to the community to have them reconsider what looks, at that point in time, like a "wrong" decision. There is probably no resolution to this difference of philosophy.  The current compromise is that b'crats will extend RFA's when it appears that new information may change the opinion of the community and they will explain their rationale when the support/oppose ratio is in the "discretionary range".  Since it seems impossible to form a consensus to do anything else, we should just document the current compromise and move on.  --Richard 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just treating RfA as a simple vote is clearly almost meaningless. I recently succeeded with a !vote of 108/1/1, an approval rate of about 99.5%. User:Danny succeeded after me (in a controversial RfA) with an approval rate of less than 70%. But I am totally certain that Danny is of far greater value to the project than I am. I suggested, some months ago (Village Pump), that in an RfA the candidate should be asked to make a lengthy and detailed presentation explaining why he should be made an admin, and should be required to answer any and all questions put to him by editors-at-large, and the closing bureaucrat should decide solely on his statement, his answers, and his wiki contribution record. Is that really such a bad idea? You can tell me - I can take it. --Anthony.bradbury 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are too many people addicted to voting to make this, or any other non-voting proposal, become acceptable. --Durin 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's real bad. :-) For one thing, and despite the great respect I have for Danny, I have no reason to think you're of lesser value than he is and RfA is not really about editor value anyways. My own two cents on this is that RfA seeks to give admin duties only to people that the community trusts to do that responsibly and in an appropriate manner. It seems as though there were quite a few who were uneasy about Danny's ability to do that consistently and while I believe they're wrong, the fact is these editors exist and should be heard. If we start promoting admins on the basis you propose, we'll get a lot more resentment and outraged cries of "Cabal!". We'll also get a system that favors eloquence above competence and we'll completely lose the transparency which I believe to be crucial. As far as Durin's last comment goes: I know you mean no harm but really, there's no need to toss off people who find value in the current system as being "addicted to voting". Many have made perfectly reasonable arguments in favor of the current system or some tweak of it and among them you find experienced Wikipedians who are simply trying to find a solution to the perceived problems of RfA. Pascal.Tesson 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about I am addicted to non-voting. Hope that helps :) --Durin 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better. You little junkie you. :-) Pascal.Tesson 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I need my fix... --Durin 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick, somebody get Durin a guinea pig! :-) Pascal.Tesson 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * hahahahaahha! Thank you Pascal, you just made my day :) --Durin 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably wasting my time here, but here goes. I, for one, like voting because I just don't see any reason to try to reinvent the wheel. For thousands of years, the whole world has known that the only way to get usable opinion data from large groups of people in a finite space of time is to vote. (Lots of governments don't use votes, but it's not because they favor consensus; it's because they don't care what most of the public thinks.) Discussion is great if there are just a few people, but it gets off track when you have 100. The only consensus-based system I can think of that works consistently is the College of Cardinals, and even there they still use ballots. (And some of our RfAs have more participants than they have.)

That doesn't mean I want to turn Wikipedia into a democracy. The U.S. uses votes, and it's not a democracy. Millions of people vote, and then a smaller number of people look at those votes and make a decision. Usually they base their decision strictly according to the data from the masses, but in certain cases they make exceptions. If they do go against the popular vote, the public will expect them to account for that. I've always thought of the bureaucrats as the electoral college of RfA. It strikes a good balance of power between democracy and autocracy. The votes are suggestions&mdash;perhaps strong suggestions&mdash;but they are not the end-all. On the other hand, having vote tallies to look back on makes it easy to see when a bureaucrat should explain his reasoning a bit better. No one group is in charge.

As I said, this isn't some crazy scheme we cooked up. This is how large societies work. Like it or not (I don't), we are a large society. Wikipedia is a heck of a lot bigger than it was back when adminship was first said to be no big deal, back when an RfA might not even be seen by twenty differnt people. I don't have a problem with discussing votes, or adding comments to votes, or asking for clarification on votes, but taking away all semblence of voting puts too much decision-making power in the hands of too few people and can make it too complicated to have one's opinion heard in the first place. Kafziel Talk 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To put that last statement another way: In a vote system, all you are is a tick mark. But in a vote system at least you are a tick mark. If there's no tally at all, you will never know whether your input was dismissed, disqualified, skimmed over, or completely overlooked. I'd rather turn my opinion into a tick mark that counts for something than turn it into a thousand words that nobody ever reads. Kafziel Talk 18:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation on Matt Britt RfA
RfAs exist for one purpose; the review of a candidate towards adminship. They are not a forum for discussing the validity or lack thereof of a particular RfA format. There is a reason talk pages exist. When I created the nomination for Matt Britt, I specifically instructed contributors to that RfA to take meta discussions to here, at WT:RFA. This is precisely the appropriate place regarding meta discussions on the format of RfAs. Then...
 * Subsequent to this, User:AKAF added a view section titled "This method of RFA is so confusing that I am unable to participate.".
 * Some hours later, I removed the section and placed it where it belonged, here on WT:RFA, noting that it is a meta discussion and inappropriate for the RfA.
 * Recognizing that there were editors who felt incapable of contributing (even if I disagreed) I placed a notice on the bureaucrat's noticeboard informing them that some contributors felt incapable of using the format, pointing the bureaucrats to the centralized discussion.
 * About 10 hours later, User:Xaosflux copied the then current contents of this section of this talk page, creating a situation where there were duplicate sections and disarray in centralizing discussions.
 * Two hours later, we still had the situation with duplicated sections and disarray in centralized discussion, with both talk pages still having copied content from each other. So, I removed it from the Matt Britt RfA talk page again, placing a marker for the location of centralized discussion.
 * I pondered for about an hour, and recognizing the validity of the contention that it would perhaps be important for there to be an historical reference to this information, placed a comment on the Matt Britt RfA talk indicating that I would put a marker to the centralized discussion on the talk page of the RfA after it closed.
 * Three hours later, User:Xaosflux reverted this and re-inserted it again into the Matt Britt RfA talk page.
 * At this point, Xaosflux created a subpage of the RfA at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt/Confusing, and transcluded it to this talk page, attempting to create another place for centralized discussion.
 * Xaosflux then transcluded it to the talk page of the RfA and this talk page
 * Four hours later, User:Radiant! moved a majority of the contents of the /confusing subpage to the RfA itself.

Now we have a situation where this discussion is scattered all over the place. There's comments on the RfA itself, where meta discussions are inappropriate. There's comments on the RfA's talk page. There's comments here at WT:RFA. There's comments on the /confusing page that Xaosflux created. It's scattershot, all over the place. This makes it extremely difficult to engage in discussion regarding this format. Where is somebody supposed to comment? Who knows? In the least, it keeps moving, and keeping track of the bouncing ball is a trick best left to a bored cat.

I consider pushing the discussion regarding the format of the RfA onto the RfA itself to be a WP:POINT violation because:
 * Meta discussions are inappropriate for a given page/article in dispute. We do not, for instance place discussion regarding the content of an article on the article itself. It goes on the article talk page. This is why we have talk pages!
 * If a person moved content from this talk regarding the atrocious state of the current 'normal' format of RfAs onto an RfA talk page they would be immediately reverted. If they continued to do so, they would be warned to stop doing it as it causes a disruption to the RfA. This RfA is a perfectly valid and live RfA. It is highly inappropriate to have such discussion on the page itself. It deserves the same respect we give to 'normal' formatted RfAs.
 * The people who are insisting on putting this content on the RfA have a strong dislike of the form of the RfA. By pushing this discussion onto the RfA, they are working to disrupt the RfA and prevent it from continuing in an appropriate manner.

This is not about me being in disagreement with the people who's opinions are against this format. Frankly, I have significant concerns about the format myself. This is about these users attempting to force discussion regarding the format of this RfA onto the RfA itself in violation of WP:POINT and going against the ideals espoused at Centralized discussion.

It is blatantly obvious to me that the editors who insist on pushing this content back onto the RfA page itself are quite willing to revert war in order to get their way. I refuse to do so. I would appreciate it if others would step in and re-re-re-re-centralize the discussion to an appropriate place. The current situation is inexcusable as meta discussions are inappropriate for the RfA itself, and the meta discussion is scattered across at least four different pages now. --Durin 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? The experiment has failed already. Who did what is irrelevant here at WT:RFA; if you find the behaviour of individual users disruptive, that should be taken care of via WP:DR. Kusma (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

**This could all have been avoided if you had left the section in the RfA in the first place, or if you had returned it after others asked you to. You've been a one-man wrecking ball around here the last couple of days, so I don't think it's fair for you to start accusing others of wrongdoing the first time you don't get your way. Kafziel Talk 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The experiment is not complete, thus asserting it has "failed" is premature. Further, per my comments elsewhere, there are more possible outcomes of the experiment than simply worked/didn't work. The people disrupting this RfA to make their point that it doesn't work are salting the experiment and forcing their view in a disruptive manner. --Durin 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a one-man wrecking ball now? Wow. I mean, wow. --Durin 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Durin's accusation of WP:POINT

 * For those who are reading this for the first time, I should make it clear that the addition of the section to Matt Britt's RFA was not a WP:POINT. I added it, after trying for 10 minutes to understand how to add a new section to the RFA. It occurred to me that I am not too inexperienced as an Editor (Although clearly not as experienced as Durin). The extreme difficulty of adding new sections to the RFA, compared with the relative ease of adding a single comment to an existing section made me think that it was appropriate to add a section to canvass how many users felt disenfrancised by the new format. I would have accepted Durin's move (I made an aborted revert after realising that Durin had moved, not deleted the section) but the revert was finally made by others. AKAF 13:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I should add that this is not related to my personal feelings about running experiments under "Live" RfAs. I find the deliberate malforming of RfAs unhelpful and disruptive. Additionally I find Durin (and other's) combined attacks of anyone voicing this opinion to be extremely uncivil when taken as a whole. Durin's repeated assertion that "meta discussions are inappropriate for the RfA" is rather difficult to justify, given that the whole RFA is a POV push of Durin's personal opinion. I find that this is exemplified by the following:
 * Almost all !votes of oppose are attacked, while all !votes of support are accepted without question.
 * Any suggestion that deliberate malforming of an RfA can lead to an invalid RfA is immediately attacked and discounted.
 * Any suggestion that the judgement of a candidate in accepting a malformed nomination is poor leads to further attacks.
 * While I appreciate that Durin has taken the time to have new ideas, I do not accept that there is any kind of consensus as to what the problems in RfA are, and thus testing anything on a live RfA is problematic at best and deliberately disruptive at worst. Durin has indicated that he wants to have a large number of these "live tests", and so I see this as a potentially escalating problem. AKAF 13:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The trend that people opposing candidates have their opinions commented on more than people supporting candidates is not confined to this RfA; look at any other and you'll see that trend appearing. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AKAF, first whether I am more experienced or not is irrelevant. I have held and continue to hold to the ideal that all good faith editors whether making their first edit or their 100,000th edit are equals. My comments regarding WP:POINT violations are considerably less directed at you.
 * Second, you're now the third person who has made the accusation that I am "attacking" all or nearly all opposes in these experiments. This is flatly and provably false. When the first such accusation was made, I counted on the Moralis RfA. 46 opposes at the time; I'd responded to only 10. Less than 25%. Further, I've barely responded to anything on the Matt Britt RfA. I've made very few comments there since the RfA opened. I'm sorry but this accusation is simply false.
 * Third, I am far from being the only one who thinks that attacking a candidate for being a guinea pig is a wrong idea. Please see Requests_for_adminship/Matt_Britt.
 * Lastly, I'll restate what I stated above. Meta discussions do not belong on the main page of whatever the meta discussion is about. This applies to articles, policy pages, images,...you name it. This is how we do things around here. I recognize people feel concerned they are "disenfranchised" (hard to understand when a) it's not a vote and b) plenty of other people felt well capable of contributing), and placed a pointed on WP:BN to alert the bureaucrats to this possibility, even trying to word it in favor of that viewpoint as much as I could . We don't need to keep forcing meta discussion onto the RfA in order for the bureaucrats to be aware of this. --Durin 13:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I phrased that poorly, sorry. You have personally replied to a lot of oppose comments (I find 10% a lot). But you will note that an environment has been created in which a group of other editors who agree with the reformats are replying to oppose comments with considerably less civility than you are.
 * As for the meta-discussion, I just don't think that you're right. The RFA is an discussion of the User's judgement and record, more than anything else. If it is the decision of other editors that the acceptance of an uncommonly formed RFA is an indication of poor judgement, how is that meta-discussion? I agree that there's a certain amount of POINT voting, but it's hard to tell since there is no consensus whether a user agreeing to the reformatting is poor judgement or not.
 * I can see that you feel strongly about it, but in my opinion having a section on all these "live tests" for those who felt unable to use the format would defuse a big problem, namely that there will always be a subset of users who feel that these are invalid RFAs, and that there should be no promotions from these tests. AKAF 14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you then be opposed to having such a section on all other RfAs using the "normal" format? A number of people find the current format quite objectionable. If it is reasonable to have similar objections on Matt Britt's RfA, it's entirely reasonable to have such objections on any other RfA where people feel the format is objectionable. --Durin 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is one of the points I noted above; if someone added such a section to a "normal" RfA they would be immediately reverted. If they re-added it, and then re-added it again they would be rightfully accused of violating WP:POINT. That's why it's a WP:POINT violation here, on this RfA. --Durin 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You should really just stop now. There is no basis in policy for removing others' comments from a discussion and relegating them to a talk page or subpage. You were absolutely wrong to move them. The policy doesn't make exceptions for metadata, and sarcastic comments like this (and this) aren't going to change that. Kafziel Talk 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will continue voicing my opinions as I see fit, as long as they are in line with Wikipedia policy and you have absolutely no right to insist that I stop. Further, your comments are not exactly in line with your ideals expressed in this latest comment from you. If you think metadata belongs on main pages, then please tell me why we have talk pages? Why not just push all the commentary from WT:RFA to WP:RFA? Afterall, it's just metadata...deserve to be on the main page! --Durin
 * I don't have a problem with sarcastic comments per se; my feelings aren't hurt. I'm just saying those comments aren't helping you prove your case. There are plenty of places that say it's bad to touch anyone else's comments. There's nowhere I know of that says it's okay to move people's comments around however you want, amidst the protests of others, as long as you deem them irrelevant. Kafziel Talk 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't deem them irrelevant. I gave them considerable weight. Moving them doesn't mean they are irrelevant. Would you please show me a main article page where we have discussions about the article on the article itself? Also, your attack on me for being sarcastic is...well, you should look in the mirror. :) --Durin 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop saying I'm attacking you. I just said I don't mind the sarcasm. I love sarcasm. Perhaps irrelevant was the wrong word. You (and only you) deemed them "inappropriate". Semantics aside, there's still no basis for moving them. Sarcasm won't change that, whining about my comments won't change that, and trying to compare RfA to an article won't change that. Kafziel Talk 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not attacking me but call me the boss and a one man wrecking machine. I'll try to keep that in mind. --Durin 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? That's it? That's your response? Still no policy to back up moving others' comments? Just a picture of Mr. T and more lamentations about your sensitive feelings? All I'm asking for is a link to where it says what you did is okay. If you can't come up with one, just say so. Why are you trying so hard to make this personal? I'm not the one who moved the section back, or moved it to a different page, or anything. I never touched it. As far as I'm concerned, we're just talking here. Kafziel Talk 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * de-indent And now my feelings are too sensitive. Funny :) Have a nice day Kafziel. --Durin 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you said that yesterday, too, but you didn't leave me alone. Still no luck on finding that policy, huh? Okie dokie. Kafziel Talk 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Silence on a point does not mean I concede it. Do not stuff words in my mouth. I simply recognize that you and I are totally incapable of interacting with each other in a rational manner. Thus, continuing discussion between us is an exercise in utter futility. --Durin 15:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny, though: I was asking for diffs or links when you decided to stop yesterday's conversation, too. You can't come up with any, so you'll "be the bigger man" and stop the conversation on your terms without admitting that you were wrong, only to show up a little later saying the same things I'm asking you to prove now (or worse, levelling accusations WP:POINT at other editors for daring to defy you). You've tried to change the subject six ways from Sunday, but I'm not having it. You can make this about me, but it still won't make you right. Kafziel Talk 15:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinions and (wrong) insights into my behavior. Have a nice day. --Durin 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would actively encourage the addition of extra discussion sections. Perhaps two discussion sections:
 * I couldn't take part because of problems caused by the format.
 * I dislike this format (but voted above), and it's being a problem in this RFA because....
 * In my opinion, this would be a better method of centralising the discussion, and hopefully would take a number of POINT opposes to a central area, leaving only those who feel that a candidate has showed poor judgement.AKAF 14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Everybody needs to take a deep breath here. It's alright to have a little experiment and it's also ok for people to point out that the experiment is giving everyone a headache and should be aborted. There's absolutely no reason to turn this into such a personal affair and anyone who has trouble with that part should just walk away from this debate and cool down for a while. Pascal.Tesson 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone noted that the RfA is a lot easier to comment on now, after all the &lt;includeonly&gt;s have been stripped? Those who want it aborted are also those who lack the desire to help improve it. –Pomte 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was hoping one or more people would help improve the format. If it was you, THANK YOU! :) --Durin 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Freakofnurture gets the credit. –Pomte 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If people have legitimate concerns against this novel process, it follows they have legitimate concerns against promoting candidates via this process, and hence that should be noted. This has nothing to do with disrupting anything, nor with making a point.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've been named above, here's my 2c on this. After seeing all the reverting (including my own) of where those comments could be, and fearing data loss as a result, I made that sub-page.  If the comments in there are still preserved somewhere feel free to speedy delete that page.  My goal in it was to fight the ForestFire that was formed.  Personally I think these comments were mostly about that specific RFA, and belong on either the RfA subpage, or it's talk page (not needed on both).  I also respect Durin's point that the discussion has bearing to other aspects of the project as well, and WT:RFA may be the approiate venue.  To achieve that end, the subpage seemed like the best compromise. —  xaosflux  Talk  01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A Simple Suggestion
Allow the crats to exercise discretion early - Explicitly state what !votes are to be discounted by crats, i.e. what they consider to be poor arguments, sockpuppets etc. These !votes are to be struck out (e.g. Oppose, not enough blah counts! ) by any crat anytime during the RfA along with an explanation. These struck !votes may be overriden by any other crat which would then be discussed at the noticeboard, and they be discussed/critiqued by any other editor if they feel that there are lapses in discretion. Everything else be left the same as it is.

Also consider : possible extension to support !votes as well? - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd always agree simply writing Support 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC) isn't helpful, that's just voting (although I'm guilty of it when I'm being lazy). Since it is the 'crats discretion to discount such opinions, this could be a good idea.  Majorly   (hot!)  15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This would alleviate the problems encountered with Carnildo's, Danny's and Ryulong's RfAs, where the numbers indicated that the candidates hadn't passed but the Bureaucrats decided that consensus had been achieved. Explanatory notes and a summary of the 'crats findings would have been useful in determining how the decision had been made. (aeropagitica) 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I'm looking out for the crat's thought process during the course of the RfA !voting, rather than at towards the closing time. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea but I'm concerned as to what the criteria would be for discounting votes. There has been some dispute as to which !votes should be ignored by bureaucrats.

Here's a list of criteria that are discounted by general agreement...


 * 1) Sock puppet accounts
 * 2) !Votes which are based on a personal grudge
 * 3) Very new accounts
 * 4) !votes by anonymous IPs

Here's a list of criteria that some people would argue should be discounted...


 * 1) No need for tools
 * 2) Failure to use edit summaries
 * "Me, too" or "Support/oppose per User:X"
 * 1) Not enough edits/experience
 * 2) Not enough edits in a particular namespace (e.g. the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces)
 * 3) Not enough edits in xFD discussions
 * 4) !Votes which are based on Wikipedia philosophy such as inclusionist/deletionist

These lists are "off the top of my head" and I readily grant that the lists could be expanded. I also grant that not all of these criteria have the same weight with regards to "discountability".

So... which of these criteria are you proposing that bureaucrats discount?

--Richard 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There was one RfA I remember (no idea whose) where the first two Oppose votes both attracted heavy criticism from users (the nominee wasn't involved, but other users were complaining that the votes weren't based in policy, etc.) As a result, the third vote simply said Oppose without a reason. (By the way, see the talk page of WP:QAV to see why you have to be very careful about disallowing votes.) --ais523 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that any of these could be discounted - each RfA can be equally measured against these criteria and the only those that they fall down upon need be highlighted in the striking of votes and summation at the end of the process. (aeropagitica) 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. If bureaucrats have this much discretion in closing RfAs, we may as well let them do on-sight promotions. See a user, promote a user; no community input required. -- Black Falcon 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be ok with me. The reasons people are being opposed these days are often absurd. I trust the judgement of a bureaucrat considerably more than I trust the judgment of a person who says "Oppose: Only have 897 mainspace edits, and I demand 1000". --Durin 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This would then raise the accusation of the existence of a cabal of like-minded admins who support a particular line of the promoting Bureaucrat. A transparent process would be better for all involved and passive observers too.  A meritocracy is more beneficial to this collaborative project than a series of cliques.  This is a worst case scenario but I can all-too easily imagine the accusation being raised as soon as a promotion goes ahead when someone opposed to the new admin's way of thinking decides to speak out. (aeropagitica) 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all with aeropagitica: transparency is important and supporters or opposers whose arguments will be discounted by the closing b'crat should get some sort of heads-up if possible. I strongly advise against making precise rules about what's a good reason and what isn't: unless the motivations are obviously bad-faith, disruptive junk then let people speak their mind. "Ridiculous" is in the eye of the beholder: for instance I find Walton Monarchist's "support unless awful" approach to RfA careless but I'm positive he's being honest and thorough in his assessments and at least he's consistent. We just disagree on what the criteria should be. I find "lack of experience with images" a bad reason to oppose but I can live with it as long as people who oppose on that basis are consistent. Pascal.Tesson 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there was something that could give information about what not to vote in RfAs besides Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions (which is only ideas and theories anyway), we would have fewer arguments about which reasons are valid reasons to support and oppose. Captain   panda  21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Aeropagitica, "where the numbers indicated that the candidates hadn't passed but the Bureaucrats decided that consensus had been achieved" - as far as I can tell the 'crats decided that consensus had not been achieved but they would promote anyway. There is a difference there.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and seeing the process whereby that decision was arrived at is important if the restructuring of RfA is going to be along these lines. Transparency in elections is a very useful thing for all concerned in order to see that due process has been observed. (aeropagitica) 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The noinclude tags on Matt Britt's RfA, and support/include/neutral sections using the current RfA method
This isn't yet another post about the correct method to use for RfAs, but instead a merely technical suggestion. At the moment, RfAs either have to use Support in bold as a section header (with no section-edit link), use ===Support=== as a section header (lengthening the RfA TOC to beyond a usable length), or use noinclude trickery (acceptable on current-style RfAs, but leading to much confusion in the case of Matt Britt's). If a proposal I've made on MediaWiki talk:common.css to make it possible to limit TOCs to a certain depth doesn't receive objections (and I don't see why it would), a fourth method will become possible: using ===Support=== as a section header (complete with [edit] link), and limiting WP:RFA's table of contents so that the 'Support' entry doesn't appear there. What do people think of this possibility? --ais523 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is support to use ====Support==== and ====Oppose==== and ====Neutral==== (level 4 currently), I don't think there's a need to supress them from the table of contents because it's only 3 subheadings per RfA. With 10 or so RfAs at any given time, the TOC at WP:RfA won't override into the first nomination. –Pomte 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Section editing on RfA. Yes, please. SchmuckyTheCat 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've toclimited the TOC at 3, so that fourth-level sections and below will be disregarded in the TOC. The RfA bots will need to be updated before we can transition to level 4 headings and enable section editing. --ais523 12:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A record has been set
I got curious, and ran the numbers totaling contributions to WT:RFA per rolling 7 days through the extant history of this talk page. The prior record for the number of contributions per rolling 7 days was during the Ryulong promotion affair with 567 comments, back in January of this year. In a close second place was the Carnildo promotion affair back in September of '06 with 538. We've just blown that record out of the water, with 748 contributions in the last 7 days.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem to indicate the Moralis and Matt Britt RfA formats are controversial. ;) --Durin 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that you added an incorrect negative sign in your mental math. More discussion implies more controversy.  GRBerry 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say you missed the ";)" on the end of my comment. :) --Durin 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that having so many comments is necessarily a good thing. Every comment made here (to fix something that isn't broken, in my opinion) is one less minor improvement to an article. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting RfA to work properly will significantly help the project. These aren't wasted edits. --Durin 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That assumes that it currently doesn't work well enough. But, as you noted yesterday, I suppose this is something about which we'll have to agree to disagree. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What he said. Kafziel Talk 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What, it's somehow detrimental to participate in policy-forming activities? There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Every article improvement that can be done will be done - whether sooner or later. You seem to be implying that a comment made here will actually subtract from the total number of article edits a contributor will make in their career here. That's a totally false implication. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not implying that. I'm just pointing to the opportunity costs of every comment made here. Every edit made here consumes time that could be spent elsewhere. Now, of course, I'm not lobbying for an end to policy discussion as such discussion is necessary to establish and maintain frameworks in which article editing can take place. The intent of my comment above was simply to express the opinion that the commenting in the past few days (in which I admit I heavily participated) may not have been ... and please don't lynch me for this ... the most productive. I would love to be proven wrong by seeing some sort of positive result, but I can see only two: (1) we adopt one of the two experimental formats as the standard, or (2) we keep the existing standard. I view the first to be a negative result and the second to be neutral (no change). Of course, there is the fact that we now know of 2 formats that won't receive consensus support. If you think the current format of RfA is broken and needs significant reform, then that's probably consoling. If you don't, well ... -- Black Falcon 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A record of another sort?
An admin has just gone rogue. Has this ever happened before? The rogue admin got in three edits before being blocked and then emergency desysopped, and got in 25 blocking, unblocking, unprotecting, and deleting actions. See WP:ANI#Robdurbar. Carcharoth 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirteen minutes from when he deleted the Main Page until he got desysopped... Carcharoth 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's shocking. I would say we need either (a) more active stewards or (b) to give crats the ability to desysop. Higher standards at RfB, whoopee. – Riana ऋ 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely, except for the bit about raising the standards. B-crat candidates are already pretty much doomed because of all the "we don't need anymore" voters; hence, the standards are already high. &mdash; Deckiller 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, my sarcasm didn't translate - I don't want higher standards. RfB is ridiculous. We're going to need to get people canonised before they can become crats. – Riana ऋ 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly this will raise new questions about whether admins claiming "right to leave" should be desysopped. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was beaten to it. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a good reason why the crats can't desysop? Moreschi Talk 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably some separation of powers thingy. Carcharoth 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't think of one, especially with the already amazingly high standards. Plus, my immediate response to this incident was "we need mroe crats!" before someone reminded me that crats can't desyssop. That incident alone means I shouldn't run for RfB for six months :) &mdash; Deckiller 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Was there actually a bureaucrat around and more accessible than jhs was? &mdash;Cryptic 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so relevant: standards at RfB are stupidly high anyway. Moreschi Talk 11:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think more to the point is: should admins be able to unblock themselves? That would be the short-term answer before the question of de-sysopping is even required. – B.hotep u/t• 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that has always seemed bizarre to me. Will (aka Wimt ) 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Admins can and do block themselves by mistake, and in this case admins who were blocked found it pretty useful to unblock themselves. Moreschi Talk 11:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True but you could make it possible to remove your own blocks but not someone else's. Or just wait for someone else to unblock you! Will (aka Wimt ) 11:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allowing to self-unblock only if you self-blocked seems like a reasonable idea. To control a rogue admin with a blockbot who blocks every available sysop you'll still need a steward, though. Kusma (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is needed is to set the system up so a self-unblock only restores editing privileges, and not admin privileges. To regain the admin privileges, you need to get someone else to complete the process. Then you hope that the number of good admins outweighs the bad ones and they get their blocks in first... Hmm. Maybe that wouldn't work! Carcharoth 11:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that's the terrifying scenario. The problem with allowing self-unblocking only if you've blocked yourself is exactly that: in that scenario, you'd need the stewards to unblock maybe hundreds of admins, desysop the rouge admin, block him, and then clean up any other mess he's left behind. That's probably why we need admins to be able to self-unblock. Moreschi Talk 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether it would be possible to introduce some kind of protection that prevented a sysop blocking more than three sysops in 24 hours or something. That would prevent that kind of blockbot attack. Will (aka Wimt ) 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good question too, I thought of that when I unblocked myself. Blocking should mean blocking from all editing privileges, including administrative privs. – Riana ऋ 11:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone actually know whether anything like this has happened before? Is it that common? Carcharoth 11:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa! What on earth?! Still, 13 minutes is a pretty good response time.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The only case I know of where an admin was emergency desysopped for what seemed at the time to be rogue behaviour was in May 2005 - see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive23. It used to be possible for admins to use rollback, protect/unprotect a page ETC. while blocked - that was fixed as bug 3801. Graham 87 12:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, one other: User:Husnock was rapidly desysopped after it emerged he'd given away his password to help someone evade a block. Moreschi Talk 12:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There will undoubtedly be calls for reform (and already are) regarding things we could change to have avoided this admin account going rogue. Reality; three admins emergency desysopped out of >1100.   .3%       (I'm apparently not allowed to use forms of emphasis, so I'm trying out adding spaces around something I want to emphasize in an effort not to annoy certain people). --Durin 13:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That number count is incomplete. We had at least three emergency desysoppings in the Daniel Brandt Wheel War case alone, none of them listed here.  Off the top of my head, I don't remember how many were permanently desysopped (at least 1), but the point that the list is obviously incomplete stands.  GRBerry 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those were not security breaches. Sorry. Even if they were, that's what... .5%? The point stands. --Durin 13:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * GRBerry, see WP:RFDA. --bainer (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is good reason not to have desysopping rights for bureaucrats. We have to remember that on the many small projects we have there are usually only two bureaucrats for the project and limiting them to promotions only is a good way to avoid potential problems. The ratio of promotions relative to desysoppings is quite large. Having a cross-project wide group of several dozens of stewards to handle desysoppings on all projects is fine. With dozens of stewards available, one can always be found quickly enough. After all, we are spending a lot more effort talking about this rare event than the actual effort required to bring the problem to an end. The system worked. NoSeptember 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Echo NoSeptember and Carcharoth; it took 13 minutes to emergency desysop. In the meantime, any vandalism to the main page was virtually instantly undone. The system worked just fine. --Durin 14:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I was suggesting that the response time should be better than 13 minutes. Something along the order of 2-3 minutes, I'd say. I am reassured though by the comments by Jon Harald Søby over at the WP:ANI thread where he said that he was told that the reason it took so long was that people in #wikipedia at the time didn't know where to get hold of a steward, actually, they didn't even know that a steward was the required class of functionary. It seems that little bit of process needs to be more widely enculturated. Also, I haven't checked, but the visible damage (eg. Main Page deletion, as you say) was fixed very quickly. Jon Harald Søby indicated that there will probably be stewards available at any time, as they are in different time zones, but that seems a little bit like wishful thinking to me. There probably are quiet times when no stewards are available, but the only way we will find out, unless a system is set up, is when something like this happens and we find all the stewards are asleep/away/inactive, or whatever. Carcharoth 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that the problem is at an end. How often are admins emergency desysopped and the matter just drops? Never. There will be arguments on policy talk pages all over Wikipedia, requests for comment that will last for months, and discussions about it on other websites (and in print, if we're really lucky) as well. Blocking a bad admin starts the problem. It doesn't finish it. Kafziel Talk 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be pointless giving it to bureaucrats, as most aren't particularly active.  Majorly   (hot!)  15:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm jaded but I'm not sure there's really much of a lesson to be learned here. I mean once every few months (if even that) some admin goes beserk. In 20 minutes he's desysopped and the little damage he's had time to do is all reverted. I don't quite understand why we should go into complex soul searching to guard against an unlikely event which in any case has consequences of relatively limited depth. Pascal.Tesson 15:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that it is because we are all used to coping with what we might call ordinary vandals, but when one of us - one of our own - goes vandal it is a bit like one of the family doing it, and the emotional impact is vastly greater. And the automatic urge is to find out why, how could it have been prevented, and how can it be prevented in the future. --Anthony.bradbury 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah but of course, I'm not part of that family! :-) Pascal.Tesson 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing Moralis' RfA
In response to a couple of requests, I'm posting a brief comment on my views on the structure of Moralis' RfA.

In general, I found that the new format wasn't particularly helpful in determining consensus. On the plus side, it did encourage users to explain their reasons for support or objection, but on the negative side, it led to a large number of comments mixed throughout the discussion repeating issues which had appeared earlier. This made it far more time-consuming than an ordinary RfA to determine which issues had been raised and how many users felt that these were serious concerns.

This was an interesting experiment and well worth conducting, but if it is to be repeated, I would be keen to see some sort of grouping of related issues. I am particularly interested in the format of Requests for adminship/Matt Britt, which seems to address this, but may carry some new difficulties. Warofdreams talk 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis' RfA in retrospect
This page has been way too quiet in the last 24 hours so let me make a few comments on the Moralis experiment. That's just bound to draw some action! :-0

First, thanks to Warofdreams for sharing his thoughts on the b'crat perspective of the format. I have to agree with him that this was an interesting experiment although not such a convincing one. I think we can all agree that the end result is difficult to make sense of, probably more so than your average RfA debate. The problem we face is of course distinguishing the impact of the format from the impact of the candidate: any RfA for a candidate who has a relatively low edit count but has been somewhat involved in the IRC channels tends to be problematic because of the discrepancy in trust from IRC people (who know the candidate better) and non-IRC people (who can only judge him through his visible contribs history). Still, I believe the format is partly to be blamed for the chaotic output and I think it failed to deliver more productive discussion. There was a lot of redundancy between the various threads and more shouting than usual. By scattering the supports and opposes through the RfA, this is bound to happen as it's harder to have an overall view of how the debate is shaping. Pascal.Tesson 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it had been a "regular" RfA, it would been snowballed. This would have stifled all the later conversation that the RfA produced. Notes:
 * This RfA produced the most commented on RfA in history for a candidate with less than 1000 edits.
 * It produced (if you strictly count votes) the 2nd most supported RfA candidate with less than 1000 edits in the last year.
 * I do not agree that the chronological sorting of comments was bad in and of itself.
 * I do agree that more coherent discussion would have been useful; perhaps something that merges the best ideas from this RfA, Matt Britt's RfA, and a notional WP:DFA style RfA would yield something better.
 * I'm still reviewing comments at various places regarding this RfA. But, preliminary summary; it produced a lot of considerably useful insight and feedback. --Durin 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to note that considering that Moralis received the 2nd most support for a candidate with less than 1000 edits, it seems odd to have previously heard complaints that people were opposing based on the format of the RfA. I suppose some may have, but it can't have been that many considering the level of support. Captain   panda  21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you think the RfA would've been snowballed. In which direction? I don't really see such a hard trend in the initial phase of it. Also, even though there was quite a lot of participation, it's really a big big stretch to attribute this to the format. For one thing, the RfA was thoroughly advertised on this talk page and on the B'crats noticeboard at a time when these pages had more traffic as usual following Danny's controversial RfA. And there's no reason to conclude that participants were drawn in because they found the format enticing. Pascal.Tesson 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions are (please take this in the good spirit it's intended) just as speculative. --Durin 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, although I find my explanation considerably simpler! Pascal.Tesson 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but mine gives a closer shave :) And before people jump on me, it's a JOKE people, a JOKE (oh wait, I'm not allowed to us caps; oops :) ). --Durin 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WANTED: Guinea pigs
We've now completed one experiment, and have another three days underway. There are still several other experiments to be conducted. I'd like to request volunteers to be guinea pigs for near future further experiments. The only qualifications are that you want to be an admin, and you think you'd make an ok candidate. You don't have to be perfect.

If you're willing to be a guinea pig, you will of course have the opportunity to refuse to be a test case for a particular format of an RfA. This is purely voluntary on your part. If you are interested, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you, --Durin 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to have experiments

 * Hmmm... How about we take a slight break from experimentation? Sure, you're not forcing every RfA candidate to take part but you are forcing every RfA participant to deal with these. It's ok to be bold but at some point, you do have to ask around and ask "mind if I experiment a bit?" Pascal.Tesson 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This goes to a point two people raised, about whether there is permission to do experiments or not. I don't have to have permission. I'm not saying this to be hostile, I'm saying it because the past three years of RfA have demonstrated that this community is incapable of coming to any consensus regarding reform, and it's unlikely that the community will suddenly now agree that experimentation is good. Look at all the rancorous debate that has occurred on this page in the last 72 hours. I'm not going to hold myself hostage to a group that is incapable of forming consensus in any direction. Indeed, that is one the chief problems I am attempting to fix. --Durin 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I could be a guinea pic if one's really needed. The only problem's that i'm already an admin, haha. I do think we should do these slowly, like 1 up at a time so that RfA can at least still flow.-- Wizardman 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the experiments as disrupting any flow; any can ignore a given RfA if they like. But, 1 a week is at least at this point pretty much defacto, as Matt's will conclude before I'll have sufficient time to craft another experiment. --Durin 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin, if you are taking the view (which I would not argue with) that experience has shown that the community has shown itself incapable of coming to consensus on reform, then when you have finished your experiments how are you going to get the community to implement one of them?--Anthony.bradbury 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And if the community shows no consensus that change is needed, why is it being forced down our throats? -  auburn pilot  talk  22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent question Anthony, an excellent question. I'll leave my response at this. --Durin 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would like a response. There is absolutely no sign that the community supports changing the system, yet here we are. -  auburn pilot  talk  22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not changing the system. I'm experimenting. There's considerable difference. --Durin 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * do you think that quoting the illustrator of Alice in Wonderland re-inforces your point?--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in reinforcing my point. --Durin 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin, if you believe that your experimentation with RfA will magically cure the community's inability to form a consensus on such large scale reform, then I am sorry to say you're in for a rough landing. You know, part of the rancorous debate you are referring to is partly due to your experimentation and systematic refusal to listen to those who argue that a particular experiment is a failure. So I'm just suggesting we slow it down, wait for patient discussion of the pros and cons of future experiments and discussion on what the experiment should be. I'm not saying this because I'm a conservative addict to voting but because I don't think we need any more rancorous arguments. This de facto standard you speak about is, after all, the standard you have chosen to impose. Pascal.Tesson 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe my experimentation with RfA will magically cure the community's inability to form a consensus. I simply refuse to be bound by the community's shortcomings. Once again, you are indicating that the only thing we can gain from an experiment is whether it "failed" or "didn't fail". This is highly subjective. You yourself above noted some conclusions of your own from the experiment. Gaining light from an experiment is a success. I recognize and respect you are extremely opposed to the experiments (perhaps in any form). If the community as a whole here came to consensus that I should stop, then I'd stop. But, I guarantee you such consensus is incapable of forming. --Durin 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to generate the consensus to do this at all. There is no reason we can't gain consensus on this, unless the current system is actually preferred over any alternatives. While you could argue that the community has trapped itself into a system where what it likes is not was is needed, unilateral tests are not acceptable. RfAs should not be failing or (more importantly) passing based on a system that has not been approved by the community. Some of these systems drastically change the role of the Bureaucrat, and having some RfAs be "easier" and some "harder" to pass is not something that should be done. Design, test, then implement; don't skip the first two steps. Prodego  talk  22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every experiment that has been attempted via the method you have suggested has utterly failed to ever make any progress. This is in part because of the community's inability to reach consensus. I recommend you read "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", with an eye towards the possibility of RfA reform coming from this community's consensus. The fact that the community can not come to consensus about anything makes this community dysfunctional and incapable of evolution. --Durin 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia we never have settled rules for anything, except in the policy, and we resist expanding that, to avoid instruction creep. If we were to DECIDE to close down some of the RfA options, like 'You must not oppose because of insufficient portal talk edits', that would be a instruction creep, and everyone would resist that. So it's hard to object to what Durin is doing (unless you just plain think it's annoying). EdJohnston 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is disruptive to the process to make large changes to some, but not all of the RfAs. I want RfA changed. But I do not want candidates able to put forward their RfAs in whatever format they want, which is what this is leading to. Process, though it can be unwieldy if used improperly, is the guide that holds the project together. Please consider that RfA is an important process that shouldn't just be messed with to see what works. Prodego  talk  22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're making the presumption that these experiments are damaging to the project. They are not. Do not allow yourself to be process bound, especially when consensus is utterly incapable of forming. Please read the essay cited above, "A group is its own worst enemy". RfA can not come to consensus, and it thus can not evolve in any direction. A process that can not do so is inherently broken. --Durin 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that consensus is very difficult, or impossible, to achieve, there is one question that you could ask. And that is, whether the community want WP:RfA to be changed. It's a simple yes/no vote. If they do, you are half way there. If they do not, you may decide for yourself.--Anthony.bradbury 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted above, if consensus forms that I should stop these experiments, I will. I'm not going to do anything against consensus of the community. So, if the community agrees that these experiments should stop, then I'll stop. I am not going to stop to wait for consensus to form that the experiments should be done; as I noted above, consensus is incapable of forming at RfA. So, if you want me to stop, please gain consensus that these experiments should stop. --Durin 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin, with all due respect, do you not see the problem in your attitude? Tossing out opponents as though they don't understand group dynamics as well as you do, insisting that your experiments are not disruptive when a number of people have fairly explicitly said they find them otherwise, seeing yourself as the one guy with a clear strategy for a better tomorrow when the rest of us are simply process bound, essentially implying you've got some kind of a mandate to shake things up when you're getting as much negative response as positive response (and I'm being generous here). I really, really am not being antagonistic here but I think you might need to walk away from all of this, just for a short while. I believe there's value in what you're trying to do but you're not going to achieve much if you keep being so inflexible about it all. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are viewing my efforts in completely the wrong light Pascal. I'm not under any particular tension or stress, and have no need of walking away. I would have thought my sprinkling of humor at different points on this page would have pointed to that, but I guess not. To respond to the rest, you're inferring there is consensus that I should stop. I'm sorry, but I don't see that consensus. You're welcome to start a process to gain that consensus, and I'd be happy to abide by a consensus decision that I should stop, if such a consensus formed. --Durin 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin, your last edit to me reads as if we are in contention; this is not so. I have already agreed that WP:RfA is badly flawed. But I do think that you are going too far, too fast, and I do see consensus on this page to hold back a little.--Anthony.bradbury 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You do, I don't. *shrug* As I noted above, the next experiment couldn't start until Matt Britt's RfA closes anyway. So, the 1 a week request will be honored. --Durin 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, guys: Durin is the boss. If you think experiments are disruptive, Durin says: No they're not. If you think there should be at least some sort of testing process first, Durin says: No there shouldn't. If you think Durin is going too fast, Durin says: No I'm not. Who can compete with such convincing arguments? Obviously not Anthony, Prodego, AuburnPilot, Pascal, or myself. I mean, really: anyone who can post a picture of a cheshire cat must be right. Kafziel Talk 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kafziel, your comments are a personal attack. This is the second time you've called me "the boss" . You've also called me a one man wrecking ball . Enough with the personal slant to your comments. Thank you, --Durin 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by everything I said, because it is absolutely factual. A lot of people have said this is disruptive. You flatly say it isn't. When asked to compromise, you say you won't. When asked what your plan is, you post a picture of a cheshire cat. What part of that is untrue? Kafziel Talk 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Kafziel, getting personal helps nobody, and obscures the fact that Durin is trying to improve the project. Durin, reading through the whole of this page appears to produce 24 editors against your recent experiments, 15 in favour (and a large number of uncomitted). Comments?--Anthony.bradbury 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments? Well, I'm being personally attacked and when I attempt to run a poll, it is immediately shut down in favor of another poll. Then, when I try to helpfully merge some clarification of the latter question on that poll, I am immediately reverted. Worse, my vote in that poll is also immediately reverted. You guys are on a witch hunt. Good grief. Start an RfAr already. It's that way. What a nice way to form consensus. Silence me. Beautiful. If you want that, then just block me already. Good night. --Durin 23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin, with deepest respect I was asking User:Kafziel to refrain from personal attacks on you, and I personally have neither reverted or deleted anything you have posted. I did not shut down your poll. I have at no time personally attacked you, nor have I made any attempt whatsoever to silence you. My question related solely to consensus on your experiments, as shown on this page.--Anthony.bradbury 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That would have been me, and I accidentally reverted you Durin. It was not deliberate, and I apologize for not reloading the history before I reverted myself. Prodego  talk  23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how calling Durin "The [RFA experiments] Boss" is a personal attack. Can we get a consensus on During being the RFA experiments boss? ;-) --Kim Bruning 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see how anyone would have a problem with that. He is eminently well-qualified and trustworthy. --Guinnog 00:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

''' This poll has been archived. It does not meet the polling guidelines '''

POLL: Should experiments in format be allowed on live RfAs?
This poll asks the question, "Should experiments in format be allowed on live RfAs?". A number of experiments before going to RfA have been tried over the last three years without any of them coming to consensus that they should move forward to experimenting on a live RfA. I can provide a rather large number of cites to this effect if anyone questions this. Thus, the question phrased as it is.

Note: This question does not ask if the results of an experimental RfA is binding. Bureaucrats are charged with and expected to evaluate consensus. If, given an experimental format they can not, it is reasonable to expect they would return the RfA is incapable of evaluating consensus and thus close as such. I note that the Moralis RfA was closed by User:Warofdreams without too much trouble. I expect that there may be considerable difficulty in closing the Matt Britt RfA and if so the bureaucrats should return it as unable to close.

PS: And yes, I know polls are evil. But, quite a number of people who are opposed to the experiments seem very much in favor of voting, so...

Should experiments in format be allowed on live RfAs?

In responding, please keep your vote short. If you would like to engage in extensive discussion, please use the discussion section below. Thank you.

Yes
 * 1) Support: The experiments are not damaging in any respect to Wikipedia, are not binding on the bureaucrats to close, and are done in cooperation with the nominee, not against their will. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. --Durin 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. But only after consensus is reached that change is necessary.--Anthony.bradbury 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Experiments may be the most effective way of making changes to entrenched procedures so, as a principle, I think we shouldn't disallow them. Personally I favor doing RFA the German way - can we try that? Haukur 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No

Neutral

Other

Discussion

I already created a similar poll, then edit conflicted. Since this will fill up lets use mine. Message:
 * Since you're reverting my additions to the poll stating that the polls are different, I'm uncommenting mine above. --Durin 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the top of the poll I created. Prodego  talk  23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your poll question asks the wrong question. I attempted to include commentary from this poll to that one, and you immediately reverted it. Good grief. --Durin 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am sorry, I only meant to revert my edit. You must have edited in the middle, and reverted you as well without realizing it. I reverted that revert :-), it was a mistake. Prodego  talk  23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Consensus poll
I created this page where we can both !vote and discuss the changes, which will both gain consensus about the changes, and show the relationship between a pure vote and a consensus system. The poll asks if "you support making changes to RfA" and if "you support the way test changes are being conducted". I highly recommend anyone interested answer both questions, and make their arguments on the talk page. Prodego talk  23:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Closed this one too, doesn't follow polling guidelines. (What's a consensus poll?) --Kim Bruning 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we were talking about consensus, how to gain consensus, ect, it seemed a suitable name. I don't know why Durin is saying I follow policy too closely. I mean "Polling guidelines"? What polling guidelines?  Prodego  talk  00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Kim, I guess we had an edit conflict when you closed it and I didn't notice, so I put my 2 cents in. Honestly, when I previewed my post, I just thought, "Oooh, purple. Fancy." :) Kafziel Talk 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like purple too. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Polling guidelines
Ironically Polling is not a substitute for discussion is much more lax than Straw polls. Either way, the way folks are trying to do polls on RFA talk utterly ignores either guideline, so I've closed them both. --Kim Bruning 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it isn't. Polls are tools to help gauge consensus, and by no means a substitute for discussion. However, based on the discussion on this page, is there agreement (consensus) to make these changes? If we can't be sure, this is where polling helps us decide. Prodego  talk  00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there consensus on the content of the poll and on the questions you are asking? --Kim Bruning 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Prodego: I don't think anyone is saying polling is a substitute for discussion. But we've got ten tons of discussion here already. A little poll won't detract from that. Kafziel Talk 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is the poll on which we are being asked for a consensus? --Selket Talk 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So ... the next step would be to have a poll on whether to try to establish consensus for the content of a poll to poll whether we can poll for the existence of consensus to experiment with RfA? ;) -- Black Falcon 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, but please establish consensus for the poll before you start it. --Kim Bruning 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Note that consensus and polling are very different things ;-)

Wording change?
I noticed that the wording to the standard RfA questions has been changed. Was there discussion related to that change? Did I miss it in the midst of all the Moralis/Matt Britt talk? Dekimasu よ! 12:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I think someone was just bold enough to do it. Pascal.Tesson 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone decided that linking to Category:Administrative backlogs in question 1 was making it too easy to answer. A candidate for adminship should know independently what sysop chores he/she intends to do.  You can ask User:Majorly about this; I think he could point you to the original discussion. YechielMan 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It would be pretty dumb if this was really the motivation for the change. I mean, the question isn't meant to be a test. Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to break the deadlock
Here's an idea to try and reconcile everyone. One of the problems I see with experimenting RfA formats on various guinea pigs is that it's hard to separate the effects of the format from the effects of the candidate. Consequently, we' re bound to end up with experiments which nobody will agree on how to interpret. Eventually, we'd like to have tested 5 or 6 formats and be able to compare their effectiveness but I don't really see how to compare, say, the effectiveness of Moralis' format versus Matt Britt's given that they have such different profiles. I'm also still skeptical that experimenting with "live" RfAs is the best solution. So I'm proposing we find a universal guinea pig: let's take one editor and run RfA's for him under different formats. Now I know that Durin will argue that RfAs which are not meant to be "real" RfAs will generate little or no action but I think that if we actually transclude these experiments on the RfA page (with some little note about its experimental nature) this might turn out ok. In the long run, this could allow a better basis for discussion on how to tweak the process whereas I'm very much convinced that the current string of experiments will only serve to entrench people in their beliefs that this or that format is preferable. Pascal.Tesson 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. I would suggest letting them go one (perhaps two) at a time so the main RFA page doesn't get clogged, it reduces confusion when voting and it doesn't generate comments here on WT:RFA like "OMGZORS WHY IS USER:X UP FOR 6 RFAS?". Obviously it should be a candidate who will receive a few opposes. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, finding that guinea pig will be no cake walk. Ideally it would be someone who will indeed generate a bit of opposition but it should also be someone who's in no rush to become an admin... Pascal.Tesson 12:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pascal is right, we need opposition and neutral commentary to get a good test of the format. Any reasonable format will handle candidates with an obvious yes or no, the tough decisions are the ones that really test a format.  GRBerry 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll volunteer to be a guinea pig. I never, ever want to be an admin, I am fairly qualified, but I have got some stuff that would probably generate opposition. But I'd only volunteer with the understanding that I would not serve if promoted. ;-) Anchoress 12:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As part of the preparation, you might want to sprinkle a few incivil comments here and there. :-) All kidding aside, I'd rather have a candidate that actually wants to be an admin. But maybe that's just me. Pascal.Tesson 13:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... but didn't you just say you are looking for someone who's in no rush to become an admin? Make up your fucking mind. ;-) How's that? Anchoress 13:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pascal. It's one thing to (in my opinion) disrupt RfA to test a format. But if the candidate doesn't even want to be an admin, then it's really just disruption to prove a point (the point being that the format can or can't work), without even pretending to have a useful goal. Kafziel Talk 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a little bit sadistic. You're looking for someone who wants to be an admin, who is willing to go through the rigamarole of being a guinea pig, but someone who would generate a fair bit of opposition? So in other words your ideal candidate is someone who wants to be an administrator but may not get to be one? Except that they're also not in a hurry to be an admin. That sounds like a tall order, plus a bit cold, if you don't mind me saying so. Anchoress 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. That's why I disagree with the whole premise of putting other people's RfAs on the line for the sake of a throw-away test. Kafziel Talk 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I suppose my secret plan to stop the experiments by suggesting we select a guinea pig that doesn't actually exist has now been uncovered. ;-) I could be that guinea pig myself, I have some interest in being an admin although it won't cause me undue stress to go through a few weeks of format experimentation. But (don't know how to say this without sounding really vain) I'm not sure I'd generate enough controversy for this to be useful, although I did get enough opposition to fail my first RfA. Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to use me as guinea pig as well, although I suffer from the same condition as Anchoress: I have no ambition to become an admin, but (opposed to Anchoress) I wouldn't say no to the extra tools. I wouldn't change my editing pattern if I did become admin, except for performing tasks myself that I now have to ask admins to do (i.e. blocks for persistent users who vandalise articles on my watch list, that I now have to report at WP:AIV). Furthermore, I think I might have ruffled some feathers here and there, so it's very likely I'll attract a fair share of opposers. Er rab ee 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "No ambition, but could use the tools" is probably about right for a test like this; if a user in that situation isn't promoted, it's not really a problem for the user, but it reduces the workload on the other admins. --ais523 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't do too shabby last time, perhaps I should resign and run again! Pulls tongue out of cheek. Seriously though, I have a couple people in mind I may email. We'll see how this discussion goes further first.   Teke  05:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To qualify why that was tongue in cheek, I do believe it was incredible that I didn't get any honest opposition, at least a few opinions. There were instances in my diffs that I wasn't comfortable with that I expected to be drug out of the murky past.  Nothing major, nothing that would have hindered my RfA in the long run, but anything.  So it was a pile on, and frankly I'm not too proud of that fact.  The consensus to promote I am proud of.  Something I've wanted to get off my chest for awhile, carry on.  Teke  05:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use me as a guinea pig for any experiments you wish to run. I have no interest in seeking adminship, and I'm sure my candidacy would engender objections as well as support in the community.  At the same time, I have a fervent interest in seeing the adminship appointment process reformed. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Another idea
I recently wrote something over at WP:AADD, and it might be an idea that could be used over here for an incremental change that might be acceptable and less disruptive. The basic idea (probably raised before), is that anyone who wants to vote per nom without giving reasons, can do so. They just add their name in a small typeface section immediately following the nominator's spiel. That leaves the field free for those who want to raise specific oppose and support points with diffs to do so in specifically named sections, similar to the optional questions sections. The idea is then that those who support or oppose based on those specific points can again add their names in small typeface section immediately following the point. To avoid long lists, the "small" lists would format as ordinary text rather than lists, thus making it clear at a glance what the distinct arguments are, rather than focusing on numbers. The different arguments could still be numbered, though there wouldn't be much need for that. Having looked at Requests for adminship/Matt Britt (and I rather like that format), my proposal would basically be similar in switching the focus to past behaviour and response to questions, and away from pile-on supports and opposes, but would still count the number of supporting and opposing "group arguments". Basically, the proposal is to move the chaff of "per nom" votes to a place where they don't disrupt the balance of the discussion as much. This would be an incremental step along the road towards an RfA where specific behaviour is discussed, rather than polling for popular support. Those who like numbers can still count the number of "per nom" votes if they want, and anyone can add an "oppose nomination" statement, which would similarly acruee "small name" support after it. The basic idea is to make clear, by using the "small" tags, that per nom votes are less important than providing some substantial argument and new evidence. Carcharoth 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the focus on specific points that are irrelevant for the question of "do I trust the candidate with the tools" is one of the major disadvantages of the Matt Britt format. People should be lead away from the idea of discussing the candidate's edit summary usage and the number of his contributions to XfD's and whether these are important points in an adminship bid and back to looking at the whole picture. For an overall reasonable candidate, there is simply no need to discuss many individual points; it only makes RfA more of a big deal instead of less. Kusma (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What appears to be the main problem with the Matt Britt's RfA format (and to a lesser extent the proposed Carcharoth format as applied to RfA), is that we're trying to merge two different things together: 'does the candidate meet criterion X' and 'is criterion X relevant for adminship'. The first will vary from candidate to candidate, whilst the second in most cases will never reach consensus. --ais523 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And once we've agreed (say) on the criteria that the candidate meets/does not meet, it's essentially up to the bureaucrat to determine whether the bulk of these findings should result in a promotion. In effect, this puts the choice of the relevant versus irrelevant criteria in the hands of the b'crat: that's not a desirable outcome. Pascal.Tesson 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whose hands would you prefer it to be in? You could say 'the community', but then it comes down to finding some way to attempt to find a consensus among the community as a whole as to which criteria are relevant; somehow I think that's unlikely. I agree that many editors will think that leaving it in the hands of the 'crats is unsatisfactory too, but at least they're more likely to actually come to a decision. You could have the community vote, but then you're polling rather than trying to seek consensus and the result may not be an adequate solution for what happens. So it's quite a tough problem, really. In fact, determining what the criteria for adminship should be anyway is quite possibly the largest hurdle to RfA reform (in part because there are so many unusual cases). The present 'everyone comes up with their own criteria, votes, and tries to persuade people to go along with them' at least avoids this problem, although it has many others. --ais523 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Refusing to allow bureaucrats to make a decision on the relevancy of an opposition vote creates a situation where "Oppose: does not have 5000 wikipedia space edits" carries potentially enough weight to sink an RfA all on its own, regardless of how much support there is. Imagine an RfA teetering on 75%. At the last moment, this opposer comes in and makes this (totally irrelevant) vote. The RfA is now below 75%. That one vote killed the RfA. One vote does not equal equality for all people in this system. That's why bureaucrats must exercise discretion in order for the current voting system to have any prayer of success. --Durin 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see this as one of the rather good points about the current RfA system. The community as a whole does not agree on precisely what the criteria should be but the format actually reflects this. If you keep staring down at one oppose opinion, you'll see it as a completely absurd oppose that risks failing the RfA. But you have to look at the big picture. Within the whole RfA these silly opposes are just random noise (and are well compensated by equally silly supports). If a candidate's support is so close to 75% that this vote makes the difference the correct interpretation is not "this RfA failed because one opposer was being silly" but rather "this RfA failed because roughly 25% of people that expressed an opinion had fairly good reasons to oppose the promotion." Actually, putting more discretion in the hands of the b'crats creates much worse distortions since different b'crats have different opinions on what a valid reason to support or oppose is. One thing we definitely don't want is a system where the success of one's RfA depends on the identity of the closing bureaucrat. Pascal.Tesson 18:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the notion that an RfA can hinge on the identity of a single voter is a horribly bad system. We work on straight percentages. We work on a super majority system. One vote does not equal equality. --Durin 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense but I have absolutely no idea what you mean in that last reply. Pascal.Tesson 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I think if you and I sat in a pub somewhere over a few pints, we'd punch the living heck out of each other and walk out lifetime friends. --Durin 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Can't wait to punch the living daylights out of you have a nice chat! Seriously though I really did not understand what you meant by that last comment and I was asking because it's clear you were saying something. Maybe a few pints would help me make sense of "One vote does not equal equality." Getting back to the topic, although we all have our doubts about the current system I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the rationale is sort of "above 80% we can safely assume that even discounting the odd meatpuppet support there is something like consensus, under 75% we can safely assume that even discounting the odd frivolous oppose there's not sufficent consensus and in between is where we want b'crats to take a hard look because it's pretty close". Mind you I'm not saying that's a perfectly sound principle but it does have a few advantages. In particular, it does not give too much discretionary power to the b'crats, it avoids lengthy recurrent debates about what's a good and not so good reason to oppose (of course we do have those but I'd say it's not actually that big a problem, compared to what it could be), it guarantees to a certain extent that candidates are all (more or less) treated the same and it guarantees that all RfA participants are also treated equally. That last point I believe is important. While we certainly have to make sure that bad-faith opposition is identified and disregarded, individual editors who oppose or support in good faith should be respected even when we disagree with their rationales and criteria. Pascal.Tesson 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I find myself in utter disagreement with just about everything you just said. This is not a comment on you; just what is being espoused. This sort of thinking is precisely one of the greatest problems RfA suffers from at this time. I could write a book on this alone. --Durin 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh, it's a bit obscure but I second Pascal.Tesson's point. There is a discretionary range from 70% to 80% where a bureaucrat could say "Eh, 73% support but, based on a discussion with some of the other bureaucrats", we think this editor should be given the sysop bit.  I don't think this is policy but it is the current modus operandi post Carnildo.  So, as Pascal asserts, RFAs never hinge on one vote.  That's why bureaucrats are not vote-counting automata.  --Richard 19:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On those RfAs I would agree. However, the track record of virtually every other discretion range RfA (and it's 75-80, not 70-80) has shown lockstepping with vote counts. --Durin 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is it written that we even have a discretion range? Just wondering... I mean I know the b-crats won't promote someone with say 50% (mind you I don't think numbers have a role here) because the b-crats would have to deal with the protest. Same with rejecting a candidate with no opposes. But looking at this I don't even see where it is written down that you must have XXX percent. I mean User:Danny has not caused so much trouble yet... or User:Ryulong.... just a thought. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding "That one vote killed the RfA." This is not logical, that one !vote wouldn't make it fail, if it didn't pass it would be because of ALL of the oppose votes.  —  xaosflux  Talk  01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Imagine a court of 9 judges. 4 vote one way, 4 vote another. The last one to vote has the most powerful vote. It's entirely logical. --Durin 04:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Durin, it isn't logical and that's exactly what Xaosflux and I were pointing out. None of these judges has more power with their vote than all the others. It's a common fallacy used often in the analysis of elections. In any case, the fact will always remain that whatever system we use for RfA you will have closely contested RfAs for which any little thing will shift the balance one way or another and there's no point in driving ourselves nuts to avoid this. Pascal.Tesson 05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In a sequential voting system, in a tie situation the last vote has the most power. Thanks for continuing the thesis that I am illogical :) To the rest, the presumption is true if we assume any possible system is a voting system. I do not accept that the only system we can possibly have must be a voting system. --Durin 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'll continue pushing that thesis until you start being logical! :-) The thing is, this last vote only has more power because all the other votes made it a close contest. So viewing that last vote as having more power is just an illusion. In any case, that sensitivity is not due to the use of a voting system. Surely you agree that whatever RfA system we implement, there will be borderline candidates for whom the consensus is difficult to form. For any of these, the final decision will inevitably hinge on who actually participated in the RfA. There is no purely objective way of determining who should get the admin tools so we have to live with this. Pascal.Tesson 14:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh cool! Now I'm hallucinating too (having illusions)! Excellent! :) Lesse, in the last week I'm a wrecking ball, the boss, a bully, insane, illogical, and now hallucinating. Hmm. I wonder how many other labels I can garner :)
 * I do not agree with the thesis that we have to exist in a pile of excrement just because we see excrement everywhere, so we should be happy with the excrement we exist in (mainly because we're familiar with this excrement, and better the excrement we know than the excrement we don't know). The exrement will continue until morale improves! --Durin 15:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you really want another label, I'll give you "overly sensitive" and perhaps even "stuck in anal stage" for that last rant. :-) Look, I certainly did not mean to insult you by using the term "illusion" although I do think you're really making a common logical mistake by interpreting a tipping vote as having more value than others. As for the excrement part, well nobody is saying that RfA is working all fine and dandy but we're not going to get anywhere by starting from a flawed analysis of what's currently going wrong. (see also new section I'll start in a second) Pascal.Tesson 16:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If me expressing some sense of humor means I'm overly sensitive, then I should hope we're all overly sensitive. :) --Durin 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know what you're insinuating but I'm deeply offended nonetheless. :) Pascal.Tesson 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm sure we are all thrilled you two are now best of friends, but does my proposal have any chance of "gaining traction", as I think the buzzword is? Carcharoth 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No proposals have any chance of gaining traction. See this link about a group being its own worst enemy, and also Dunbar's number. If you want to try it out, run an experiment. --Durin 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little bit less pessimistic than you. I think that a well-thought out series of small, incremental changes, might have a chance of getting through. A bit like evolution! Sweeping redesigns and changes are less likely to succeed. Also, note that change is still possible, it is just that we haven't ossified enough to bow to proper top-down organisation (and hopefully never will). Carcharoth
 * de-indent Have a look at these two nominations from September 2004 Requests for adminship/CryptoDerk, Requests for adminship/Mackensen. That's 2.5 years ago. Notice anything different about this format of RfA compared to 'modern' RfAs? No? Me neither. Now, have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives, reading archives 21 through 87. I'll save you the time if you like; there's been a bazilliongazillion proposals for reform in a dizzying array of ways. Not one of them has gained traction, other than infitesimally small changes (we have the questions at the top now, and we apply closing templates...oooooo radical change!). I'm willing to assume progress can happen, but when you're beaten in the head a few dozen times with a sledgehammer, eventually you figure out that standing in range of the sledgehammer just might not be such a good idea anymore. :) --Durin 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then maybe it is not broken? :-) I think there are improvements that could be made, but I don't participate in RfAs much because, if I encounter an admin "out there", the best way to judge them is to engage them in conversation and see if they can make reasoned arguments to justify their actions. Over time, I become aware of particularly active admins, and mentally pigeonhole them by what I've seen of their actions and comments. Any admins I might have concerns about, I may try and politely talk to them, or wait until they end up tripping themselves up at some point down the line. It ends up being a spectrum of behaviour, rather than "all the admins are perfect". And it is a deliciously anarchic and organic process. It is not to everyone's taste though. Some areas of Wikipedia are rigorously organised and kept under control (think ArbCom), and RfA is actually one of the more organised areas of Wikipedia, IMO. The only real issue is excessive backlogs and a low promotion rate compared to the number of editors and articles. If this ever becomes a real problem, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. What, in your opinion, is the single most pressing reason to have more admins? Carcharoth 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A lack of admins, combined with there isn't any reason to not have more. There's no quota, or dimishing supply of admin flags. For lack of admins, note heavily increasing amount of work per admin, plus significant, ongoing backlogs in a variety of areas. There's plenty (and I mean plenty) of secondary, and tertiary reasons. --Durin 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Then put RfA up for MfD; give adminship to anyone who asks for it, and can get at least 20 support votes; find 30 admins to become bureaucrats to run the new system; and turn the current bureaucrats into stewards to run a de-adminning process. I leave the order of this up to you... This should focus all the current RfA activity on de-adminning those found to be unsuitable. Hang on. On second thoughts, just find more candidates and work at changing the culture at RfA. I just voted support on an RfA cos I have seen the candidate's work. I think I will watch RfA more closely, and take notice when I recognise a name. Carcharoth 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting proposal :) To last, you might try not voting on an RfA and instead helping consensus form. Voting serves consensus forming very, very poorly. In fact, it actively works against it. --Durin 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the numbers are so alluring to those who like statistics... Not to mention WP:100, WP:200, WP:300 and WP:400. I still think there is room for voting, but only after a discussion has taken place. Carcharoth 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Factors survey
In an effort to find out which factors are important to people when they give their opinions on requests for adminship, and how important those factors are, I've started a survey at Requests for adminship/Factors. It's not a poll, or a vote, it's just a survey to generate some ideas and hopefully, to develop a better understanding of what the community looks for in a candidate.

I've started it off with an initial selection of factors; feel free to add more factors, but try to keep them broadly defined. --bainer (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A very good idea in my opinion, I will watch this with interest. Camaron1 | Chris 11:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we just go through this a few months ago? Agent 86 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the questions that were asked in that survey are a little different to this. Camaron1 | Chris 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That was mainly about the performance of existing admins and the mechanics of the operation of this page. This aims to find out more about what's important to the community when assessing a candidate. --bainer (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathbot tool
This does not seem to be working. How do i see which candidates' edit summay usage? Simply south 22:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Works fine on my computer. · AO Talk 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The toolserver was down I guess, as interiot's tool did not work either. Now both tools are working. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)