Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 97

Self Nomination
Although I have not been around very long, I have seen a number of very strong editors nominate themselves for RfA. I have also seen some not so great editors nominated by two or even three of their friends. Its troubling to see something like this in regards to self-nom:
 * "Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber"

This has been posted on several ongoing RfAs seemingly completely without any consideration of the contributions or personal attributes of the editor under evaluation. I wanted to bring this up here to have a discussion not in the middle of an RfA. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a silly reason to oppose. But that doesn't mean that we can tell people what criteria they may use to determine if they trust a candidate. -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone is using criteria that the community broadly regards as frivolous or capricious, then although they are free to use that criterion, their opinion should be given less weight. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it has to be kept in mind that administrators must have the trust of the community as a whole to work effectively. Things like FAC can ignore silly objections to a greater extent because an article is no worse for some people not liking it. -Amarkov moo! 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone can draw up Arguments to avoid in RfA discussions? — Kurykh  03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me; it could be made into a sort of primer that first-time voters at RfA can read up. But I guess there won't be many people for such a page.- Two Oars 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions already exists, so why not use it? Yes, I know you mistyped the link. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link;I looked for it but I guess I did not look hard enough :). - Two Oars 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the WP:BOLD road and vomitted up some text onto that essay regarding this topic. It needs some polishing, so have at it! I hope that I have not stomped any toes by editing an essay... &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 04:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Amarkov, that is true, but it doesn't mean that the community can't require people to provide good reasons why they do or do not trust someone. --bainer (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But who will determine what constitutes a "good" reason? I agree that opposing on that basis is ridiculous (and shows a lack of understanding of WP:NOT), but I'd rather have that than some supposed 'authority' dictating when people may or may not trust others. Of course, there's nothing wrong with questioning or challenging such opposes. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The usual process of consensus, of course. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; it's ridiculous. Having higher standards for self-noms is explainable, opposing them because they are self-noms is absurd. — Kurykh  03:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, heaven forbid someone not take the time to hunt around for someone to nominate them when they feel up to the task... silly reason. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If there's something wrong with self-noms, we may as well disqualify them altogether.  I could easily dig up a half dozen excellent admins who got their mop via self-nom, but I think you all get the idea. Yechiel Man  04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look like a great reason to oppose. Let's see how this looks. If you nominate yourself, you're considered power-hungry. What if, you choose to accept a nomination from another user? Shouldn't you also be considered power-hungry in that case? You have the option to decline the nomination, but if you instead choose to accept it, wouldn't that mean you're also eager to have the admin tools? The justification doesn't seem right, and I don't see this as being a noteworthy reason to oppose. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not it at all. Think more along the lines of Cincinnatus, or even George Washington--both men who had absolutely no desire whatsoever for the reins of power, but nonetheless accepted them because they had no choice.  Kurt Weber 18:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn, I should have opposed Nishkid's power-hungry self-nom... :)  Majorly  (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should have. :) *Literally takes a bit out of Jimbo* Nishkid64 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any editor who self-nominates is obviously insecure and wants the power to compensate for that insecurity. Any editor who is nominated and accepts is obviously power-hungry, but is also insecure since s/he didn't have the courage to self-nominate. Any editor who is nominated and declines obviously has ulterior motives and has something to hide ... s/he is also insecure for not wanting to get the power. It all makes sense. ;-) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should ask all self-noms to withdraw and then nominate them? That would clearly make the process more fair. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is we need more good admins. It should not matter one bit whether they nominate themselves, they are nominated by Steven Colbert, or my girlfriend's cat. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your premise, but not your conclusions. I'm sure you'd agree with me that "we need more admins" does not mean that "anyone who asks for it should be made an admin"--and I know that that's not what you're saying, but it's important to understand this.  Clearly, we both agree that the end does not justify the means--that SOME standards should be applied.  At the end of the day, it comes down to economics: trade-offs and risk-aversion.  You are less risk-averse on this particular issue than I am, so your choice in the trade-off between "getting more admins" and "keeping out people who shouldn't be admins" is different than mine is.  It's really not a difference in principle, just a difference in priorities.  Kurt Weber 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem, Kurt, is that you don't even bother evaluating a candidate if they are self nom. You simply oppose "prima facie" under the radical, bad-faith assumption that they are power hungry.  Maybe some of them don't see adminship as a power trip, but rather as a chance to contribute on this project in a different way than they do as editors.  And really, what power is it that you fear an admin is going to take on?  They are still held accountable for their actions and can be de-sysoped if they are causing problems.  I think that it takes some care and time to evaluate a candidate for adminship.  Looking to see where the nomination came from, however, does not seem very important relative to all other variables.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's not like many nominations aren't asked for by the candidate. If someone wants to be an admin I'd actually prefer they just say so, rather than try to play RFA politics and "arrange" a nomination for themselves. We aren't picking presidents, we're picking people who'll help clear CSD and block a few vandals. --W.marsh 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And people who can view deleted material, undelete it, stand for ArbCom, request checkuser access, block and unblock any user (not just vandals), protect and unprotect articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, some non-admins went up for ArbCom in the last election *coughDanielcough*. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is getting off topic, but I'm not convinced that stricter (in this case, inflexible) RFA voting makes us any more likely to detect the bad apples. At any rate, I'd think a candidate being honest and not playing political games would be a positive sign. --W.marsh 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree about the political games part. And Kurt Weber, you are right in saying it is just a difference in priorities; but what everyone here is saying is that your risk-aversion seems to be bordering on paranoia.- Two Oars 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Self noms are fine, some people will hold it against you, but you should already know that going in. ( H )  19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-noms are OK by me and for those who don't like it, its better that they stay "Neutral" than oppose because as Black Falcon mentioned, it all makes sense :) ..-- Cometstyles 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Never ever trust a self-nom. As we all edit this work openly, all know each other on a personal basis, and don't use pseuodnyms for our account names, a self nomination is pointless and a waste of time. Every editor on Wikipedia knows exactly how good or bad all the rest are, so someone else will nominate you if you need the tools. Cough. Pedro |  Chat  20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about that. Some of our greatest admins were self-noms, and some of our worst ones were nominated by others. So using this as a alleged premise for power hunger is disingenuous at best. — Kurykh  20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is borderline trolling there. Have you actually looked at the performance of any successful self-noms? You can start with my performance if you like. --W.marsh 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, guess irony doesn't work in text rather than speech. See my edit summary on my comment. W.marsh I'd prefer you looked a bit closer and actuallly read my comments before acusing me of trolling please. Pedro | Chat
 * We should not have to look at edit summaries to discern between sarcasm and reality. — Kurykh  21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So I guess You all know each other personally and we don't use pseudonyms was just outright trolling Mr Kurykh? Or is Kurygh your first name ?? Cummon guys, stay real please! Pedro | Chat


 * The "cough" at the end was telling, but I thought it was sarcastic anyway. <font color="#3D59AB">Leebo  <font color="#2A8E82">T /<font color="#2A8E82"> C 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are lots of things that shouldn't be, yet still are. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like we shouldn't be going "AAHHHHH! Ridiculous oppose rationale! Burn him/her/it!"?  — Kurykh  21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SARCASM at work. It would be interesting to look at a dozen or so "problem admins" (those who were socks, abusive, truly power-hungry) and see how many were self-noms. Runcorn? Nope. Robdurbar was, in fact, a self-nom. I won't name any other names since my definition of "problem admin" may not be shared by all, but I'd be surprised if self-noms had any more predictive power than a coin flip. Yes, Cininnatus and George Washington are excellent role models, if somewhat embellished by legend. But realistically, what's wrong with people who are actually interested in being admins coming forward for community scrutiny? I don't see self-noms as a problem; if anything, requiring outside noms encourages the political aspects of this enterprise, which I find a net negative. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflicts) Well whatever, I guess you weren't trolling, but you shouldn't be so shocked if there's a misunderstanding when you say something that sounds very trollish unless someone checks your vague edit summary (which I didn't do). --W.marsh 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So I guess you didn't as such read my actual comment (not edit summary) then, and take a brief moments to realise that precious few people here edit under their real name? Complex stuff, obviously..... Pedro | Chat  21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you just don't get it... if you communicated ineffectively, you're partially to blame. Just trying to insult me further isn't helpful. --W.marsh 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have been so ineffective in my communication. I'm also sorry you think I insulted you. I guess that you accusing me of trolling wasn't offenisive at all. I think self noms are really great. Hope that clears up my opinion! :) Pedro | Chat  21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Look - I'm sorry if that offended, I really am, but really I was trying to make a serious point within it and accusations of trolling are not pleasent. I guess my humour is better of elsewhere. Sorry. Pedro | Chat


 * Sarcasm is a great way to let people know what you mean! It will never be misunderstood. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good oh. I guess Uncyclopedia is better for me than trying to help out this encyclopedia then. Pedro | Chat  21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I always find it tiresome when editors start threatening to leave the project like this... &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the irony is wearing a bit thin then. Quite how do you interpret that as a threat to leave? Like anyone not editing ever again here is a threat anyhow??? Let's stay with the plot boys and girls, this thread is about people deciding for themselves they need some buttons to help them. I'm sorry if my comments have seemed disruptive, they really aren't meant to be. Self noms are no big deal IMHO. Does that end this ? Pedro | Chat


 * Gaff struck through his comments, as have I. They were both off topic and we have discussed on our respective talk pages for transparency. Pedro |  Chat  22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This whole arguments eventually fails in the face of this—we do not scrutinize the nominators as part of the RfA process. So long as that continues to be the case, I can ask my next-door neighbor, with three edits to Cats, to nominate me, and in 's book, it's just as valid as a nom from Jimbo and far less valid than a self-nom.  Unless we're planning on changing that any time soon, restricting self-noms is pointless, and serves only to insult those who legitimately want/need the tools and don't want to go through the hassle of finding a sponsor.  RfA candidates, self-nom or not, still rise and fall on the basis of their merits, not their noms'.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. The argument that self-noms should be opposed "prima facie" (how I love that little gem of a phrase), also is ultimately counterproductive for wikipedia.  We need good admins to keep things moving smoothly around here.  There are constant and sizeable backlogs in a number of places requiring admin attention.  Its silly to think that excellent admin candidates are sitting on the shelf waiting for a nom, when it would be so much better to just move forward and get them working with the mop.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 05:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 *  For the record, the entire above is possibly the greatest proof that editors take a cursory glance rather than digging deeper before casting votes at RfA....... Pedro | Chat  21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a point of information, when a prima facie case is established, the burden then shifts to the defendant (in this case self-nominator) to provide evidence to the contrary. For an RFA, that would include the answers to questions, contribution history, etc.  The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff (in this case, the opposer) to address that evidence.  The reason this argument is silly is because that last part is not occurring.  You can't just say, "This is a prima facie case for..." and then not address countervailing evidence.  It's an untenable position. -Chunky Rice 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true. However RfA is not a courtroom, and come to that it's not a vote either. It's an opportunity to gather consensus so that the closing 'crat can make an informed decision. Well, I think that was the idea ........ :) Pedro | Chat  19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize that it's not a courtroom, but in a consensus discussion, both sides present arguments for their point of view. Therefore, it is reasonable to point out the ways in which an argument is faulty.  Here, the refusal to consider evidence which runs counter to the prima facie case renders the argument essentially invalid.  A prima facie case is the first step in an argument, not the last.  -Chunky Rice 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A good point fairly made. I see where you're coming from now, and agree. Thanks for you time in replying. Pedro |  Chat  20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a good point. However, the user repeatedly !voting this way is not apparently interested in hearing arguments.  This leaves it ultimately up to the closer of the RfA to decide how much credence to give a prima facie oppose.  As I see it, a prima facie oppose on self-noms is very much against WP:AGF.  From my read of the discussion here, it seems that there is a consensus that such argument is superficial, bad faith, and not to be taken seriously.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as RfA isn't supposed to be a vote, and our bureaucrats tend to have at least a trace of common sense, I really don't see the point in harassing !voters who have an obviously flawed rationale. If a nomination has 80 supports and 2 opposes, it's obvious that consensus lies with the candidate. If a candidate is being opposed in greater numbers, then there's obviously more flaws to them than being allegedly power-hungry. Yes, frivolous opposes are annoying, but it's not like you get extra privileges for having zero opposes. I say we live and let live as far as RfA rationales go, since ultimately, it's just a few nuts in a sea of mostly reasonable people. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it sometimes seems to deter oppose voters if the first oppose vote has a strange rationale. For example, I think Kelly Martin's "no WikiProject endorsement" oppose votes helped some candidates gain extra support. Kusma (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that comment. Pedro | Chat  07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * *cough*Kelly never opposed based on Wikiprojects*cough* Oh, never mind... Riana ⁂  10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing about that pseudonym thing, Pedro. Turns out they use "Blue" as a surname in France and Scotland. *Backs away slowly...* <font color="#000FFF">Cool <font color="#000FFF"> Blue <font color="#800000">talk to me 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * <dry humour - not sarcasm>And indeed Pedro is simply a Spanish variant of Peter....What a coincidence.</dry humour - not sarcasm>. Pedro | Chat  07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I nominated myself because the poor guy who nominated me the first time got dragged through a heap of crap. And I haven't (yet) destroyed the very foundation of Wikipedia.  There are sometimes good reasons for nominating oneself.  Another might be if lots of people want to nominate you and you think (like I do) that co-noms are lame.   Neil   ╦  15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting topic... As an editor with an open self-nom RFA who recently received one of these prima facie opposes, it really got me to thinking. Essentially, I've decided such an opposition is entirely valid, even if you disagree with it. It strikes me that if RFA's really are not a vote, then such a comment of opposition is really nothing more than that. Something for the community to consider, and in my case, the self nominated editor to consider as regards one's own humilty, and more importantly, mature conduct... Does this mean I would want to have an unsuccesful RFA which hinged on this oppose comment? Absolutely not, if only because I feel it puts me in a hard to defend position wherein I have to prove in the present how I will behave in the future when I have access to tools I have never had access to previously. My only defense in such a context is to say "I will behave responsibly, and with great respect to the community. I seek adminship for the greater good of Wikipedia, not myself."

That said, this is really the fundamental guiding philosphy we should expect from everyone who is either nominated, or self-nominated for an RFA. Thusly, I then have to hope that my fellow editors will trust me in saying such, at which point, I really think we return to square one of the entire RFA process: you will get the mop if you have the consensus trust of the community to behave in a manner which reflects well on the community. As someone who has been here for over two years contributing in a constructive fashion, I can only hope that my time invested in this project reflects well enough on me to garner support. Hiberniantears 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although this is all fascinating, could I point out that I am confident that the Bureaucrats are not stupid, and that when they see the same oppose !vote from the same editor in every self-nom, they will wholly discount it? I think that this discussion is fun, but I am quite certain that neither it, nor !votes made by Kurt Weber as previously posted, will affect applicants' promotion prospects in the slightest. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut down on premature requests
Someone opposed another person's admin request, very rightly pointing out:
 * Out of your 1500 edits, 1400 were made in June

There's something wrong with this RfA system if a person like that can request to be an admin. This is not the first time I've seen a request like this. Why arent there some atleast common sensical rules that stop premature requests at the gate and not waste community time like this? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a perennial proposal at WT:RFA that has seen a lot of discussion. We couldn't get consensus for even a 1,000 edit minimum or semi-protecting WP:RFA, so I don't think anything else is likely to pass.--Chaser - T 01:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a premature request, by the way, it's a perfectly legitimate one. 1000 edits is plenty.  Majorly  (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When discussing active RfA's, it is usually advisable to say something on that person's RfA, or they might get offended they are being discussed behind their back. Also, adminship is only about trust - a number of edits requirements would be rediculous, thats editcountitis. I originally received adminship on with 2 edits (even though that was for a different purpose, it still showed I was trusted). Yes, edits are a good indicator, but in no way do they determine adminship, or else we would promote everyone with over 5K edits automatically, which would be a huge issue. A vandalbot could get adminship in minutes. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the RfA system if it lets people nominate themselves for adminship when they're not ready to be admins. There'd be something wrong if it let them actually get adminship when they're obviously not ready... so there's not a problem. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, I think disallowing anyone with less than 1000 edits would be fine. Second, the reason so many people with 1000-2500 edits nominate themselves is likely the fact that in almost all RFAs at least 2 or 3 users write "support adminship is no big deal", reference a decision made by jimbo wales in 2003. If people stopped using using that in their supports, we might be able to reduce the amount of "stillborn" candidates (those whose RFAs are bound to fail on arrival). Third, perhaps 'Crats could be allowed to liberalize their use of the snowball clause to close any RFA that appears destined to fail. Fourth, to the Fearow, this discussion isn't just about you, its about RFAs in general; therefore this is the proper venue for such a discussion.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1400 edits in one month! Wish I had that much time. :)  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Black Harry, I know that you as a strict edit counter would think that. And that's fine, please think that quantity is best, because as said above, a vandalbot should pass with your standards. We should encourage, not bar people from requesting. The only reason RfAs fail is... because people oppose them. Usually with shoddy reasoning (anything that mentions numbers is generally shoddy). If people realised that "adminship is no big deal" - and speaking as an admin of four wikis, it is not a big deal - then we'd have more admins around to clear the backlogs. I've noticed, it's people like Black Harry and other various users who think edit count is so important, and that they aren't admins. This goes to show they have no idea of what being one is like. None at all.
 * To another point raised: RfAs destined to fail. Take DrKiernan's (sp?) recent request. Not your average candidate. Of course, the RfA lurkers immediately opposed after seeing the numbers. But now, he's an admin. What do you think of that?
 * And your last point, this is blatantly about TheFearow - that quote is from his RfA so it has everything to do with him.  Majorly  (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, referring to people who vote on RFAs as "lurkers" and to call reasoning you disagree with "shoddy" is bordering on uncivil, and one of the reason's why your not a Bureaucrat.
 * And the DrKiernan's RFA is the only one I can think of that passed after failure seemed imminent (and many who opposed seemed willing to reconsider in the future).
 * People like me who like to see a certain number of edits (for me its around 2000) before we are willing to hand a user the ability to block and delete, do so because we know that admins are rarely held accountable for there actions, so we set a certain general standard for trusting a user.
 * And I doubt you realize this, but I recently proposed at the RFA reform talkpage that the pass/fail mark (currently at 75% of votes) be lowered to 67%. I do think more admins would be helpful to the project, but that doesn't mean levity.
 * -- Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 03:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At least what I say is true: there are people who wait and comment on every request, often opposing after lazily looking at the numbers with no thought whatsoever. It just saddens me that such people are allowed to take part in RfAs; they clearly have no idea about admins if they think numbers are the most important thing. People like me are needed to try to turn disallusioned edit counters into people who actually bother to look at a candidate. Well done on the % thing; however, there is no such "mark" - it's the bureaucrat's discretion.  Majorly  (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (deindented)Regarding the fact that I said it was about me, the oppose "Out of your 1500 edits, 1400 were made in June" was on my RfA. I consider that discussing me. I personally am not offended, but discussing people without them knowing is considered offensive to some. Also, the quote from jimbo is true - adminship is no big deal - we have over 1.2K admins - most of those are inactive. If it was a big deal, we would have no where as many admins - everyone would be geting desysopped on every tiny absense. Admin is a couple buttons, all that do reversable things. Some things are harder to reverse, but everything is reversable, and no damage can be done. It IS no big deal. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the semi-active and inactive lists linked from WP:LA compared to the total number. We're not mostly inactive. Oh, and you'll be hard-pressed to change minds about whether adminship is a big deal. It's practically philosophical, now.--Chaser - T 02:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Black Harry, you justify your stand by saying that "admins are rarely held accountable". Noone really believes any differently and we all hope that admins are chosen carefully. In fact that's precisely the reason why I and a few others have problems with your behavior on RfA. Looking at an editcounter is plain lazy. Like I said many times before, there's no shortage of people to participate in RfA debates so please consider contributing to a tenth of the debates in which you currently participate and spend 10 times as much effort on each. This would be of much greater service to the community. Pascal.Tesson 04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking. If it is possible to have a bot at WP:UAA who can remove users who have already been blocked, and if bots as intelligent as say, MartinBot, are feasible, surely some type of bot can be made who can remove obvious premature RFA requests? All that we can do with bots these days... surely a bot could be made to deal with this issue. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please define "obviously premature." — Kurykh  05:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A user with less than 400-500 edits adequately fits my definition, or a user who has got a fair amount of edits (like say 1500), but has only been around for 1-2 weeks approx.. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about 501 edits and here for 3 weeks? You see, the definition is very subjective. Everyone knows the concept, but where is the line drawn? — Kurykh  05:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it really breaks my heart when somebody signs up, runs for adminship first thing, and obviously really, really means well, but also obviously really, really isn't ready to be an admin. They inevitably get flooded with opposes, and tend to feel about as bitten as any newcomer can be. I'm not sure how exactly we can dissuade these people, or convince them to wait, whether via some appropriately bolded message on the front page, or even something as simple as requiring 24 hours' membership to run, but I really wish there were some way we could prevent these truly abhorrent trainwrecks from happening. They're disruptive to the project and hurtful to new users who just didn't know any better. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To prevent that scenario from occurring, the RFA mainpage could be semi-protected.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 05:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What if requests were not allowed to go live until a crat has reviewed it? That could clear some things up 1. Communities time would not be wasted. 2. There wouldnt be a flood of opposes to newcomers and 3.Who better than a crat to nicely explain to a user before their RFA turns into a bloodbath that it wont pass? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it wouldn't necessarily have to be a crat but we could have some sort of clerk system as in WP:RFCU. Might be a decent idea. Pascal.Tesson 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be against normal users (like myself, remember), but I think it should be at least an admin job, or a crat one. Personally I think it should be a crat job, because it is them, after all, who close the RFAs and who are really in control of who passes and who doesn't, which is effectively what they would do here - who passes to try to pass :). Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But then we would need more crats. :-) Pascal.Tesson 06:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (new indent for my sanity) We already do. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I love that idea, and the more crats thing is great :) We need a reason for more crats to be hired. The existing (really good) ones don't seem to be good enough for most people. A clerk system would be good as well. However, I think that the minimum should not be based on numbers, but at a crats discretion. If they managed to become a crat, they probably won't base their decision on numbers. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have previously stated, on some ancient post on this very page, 'crats are 'crats for a reason. They have earned a level of trust from the community even higher, on average, than even sysops. If we can trust them to be crats, we can trust them in such a clerking system as well. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with users requesting adminship so early. What I do have a problem is when other users (again, not attacking anyone in particular) seem to lose their cool, and bite the candidate where it hurts. I think what we need to do is have some sort of guideline in place showing us how users should act when discussing a user's request. Sebi  <sub style="color: darkgreen;">&#91; talk &#93; 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply put, users requesting adminship like that, when they are very premature, quite frankly wastes the communities time, and, no matter what, if the premature user fails (which they will) then they'll get hurt anyway, no matter which way you slice it. Thats why i think a bureaucratic/administrative clerking filter system is a good idea. Both of these issues are resolved if the clerking is handled properly. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wastes the community's time? I hope you realise you're not compelled to participate in requests. I hope you realise it's entirely possible to oppose a request while still being encouraging. It seems to me that we would all be better off if we put our efforts into convincing RFA regulars to be more encouraging when opposing rather than trying to force some limits on who can make requests. --bainer (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No no. Not like the way you are thinking. What I mean by that is that its simply an unnecessary thing. Maybe it doesnt waste the communities time, but perhaps it wastes the candidtates time. And i do realise its possible to oppose and be encouraging. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to tell people, in general, "it's best if you've been here a little while and have a decent amount of edits", without one side of this debate complaining about it, while at the same time saying that this doesn't mean you shouldn't be an admin, just give it time? That seems to be the main question, and instead of bickering why not try and think of an idea? If it both cuts down on premature rfas, and gets those would-be-attempting users to edit more and become good admins/admin candidates in the future, it would work out. Wizardman  13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that is, in my opinion, where my clerking idea comes in. Read further above to see what I'm talking about. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, well. Its the same case of no-consensus then. There's usually no consensus too on who to elect for president, so its natural to have the same situation here. I think someone powerful (e.g. Jimbo) has to step in and make the decision and make some rules to improve things. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My goodness. I just finished saying that I have no interest in politics, and already I have something to say. I see a lot of talk about "premature requests" and proposals for automatic rejections based on edit count. I think that a person should be expected to make a few edits in order to demonstrate their understanding of the Wikipedia and prove that they aren't here to vandalize. I wouldn't bother to find consensus on a minimum number; I'm sure we all know a lot of edits when we see it. As I understand it, adminship is not supposed to be an exclusive club. This is an online encyclopedia, folks. More than that, it's a wiki, which means that we want to encourage people to participate to the best of their ability. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has demonstrated knowledge of the available tools, and trustworthiness with the privileges, is not premature in asking for additional rights. Let's worry less about creating rules to exclude people and look for ways to help people succeed when they say that they want to help. If you think someone isn't ready, help them to be ready. We all want what's best for the Wikipedia, don't we? DOSGuy 05:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say, DOSGuy, admirable sentiments just keep coming from you! I think he might be onto something here. I think we may have lost sight of things a bit. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

RfB
Hello. I have recently started participating in RfA's, and I came across an RfB. I would have liked to participate, except I didn't know if there were stricter expectations. I am personally against editcountitis, but edit counts do help to judge experience. I would like to know what to look for in a 'crat. Does it depend on Edit count, or more on sysop duties? <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">stan Talk 02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the minute, it seems to depend on everything the person has ever done, rather than being specifically related to how the person would use the bureaucrat tools. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, RfB is impossable to pass. Heck, it's unlikely that any Wikipedian would pass with the current standards, including the current crats. &mdash; Deckiller 02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And everyone complains how few admins we have. Apparently it's a sin to even consider an RFB.  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 02:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't impossible, contrary to popular belief. We just haven't found a good enough candidate yet. There are admins out there who I know would do a marvellous job. To the question: it depends more on sysop duties than edit count.  Majorly  (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Declined noms
Is it just me, or does it seem like a lot more people don't wish to be admin candidates? I guess this goes to frequent nommers, but I have had almost no success these past two months in getting potential very good candidates to accept. I dunno if this is the same for everyone. If this is becoming common, is this something to worry about? Wizardman 13:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can speak as a failed admin candidate, and I can tell you that it could possibly be nerves, or people who are just telling themselves not to be over-eager and be patient. I can tell you that I'm waiting ages before I try again, just to be safe. And I'm not sure if its something to worry about. As far as I can see, we've got plenty of candidates interested. Infact, if you glance at the RFA board at the moment, Wizardman, we've got something like 15 candidates! Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, maybe it's just me. The number of self-noms seems to be up, so it could be that people are more eager, which would basically go against my personal findings, but that seems to be the case. Wizardman  14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, it may just be because users are worried as some maybe "scared" about going for RfA as if it fails some of the opposes can be hurtful although I'm sure no-one would mean for this, I wouldn't say self-noms are eagerness to become administrators, it may just be because people dont want to draw massive attentions to themselves by having lots of nominations and co-nominations, thats just my thoughts though. The Sunshine Man is now <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 15:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to "honk my own horn" but on the RFA Reform page I came up with the idea of creating a search commitee to find candidates.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there is Snowolf's admin scouting, thats good.... The Sunshine Man is now <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I hadn't heard of that until now. My idea was essentially the same thing, but just larger.  And my proposed committee would look at users with the template: User wikipedia/Administrator someday user page, since those users seem to interested in being Sysopped.   Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know whether I'm convinced really, I'd like to be an admin but I know that I'm not going for RfA for at least four months as I'm not yet ready yet, it could work and I'd help out if necessary but I'm a little unsure. The Sunshine Man is now <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 15:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(arb. unindent) I'm starting to think that I'm a bit alone in the opinion that actually this encylopedia is here for only one actual purpose - for people to read it. I've seen so many opposes at RFA based on a lack of contribution (and my own RFA had plenty too, for transparency) but what the hell are we expecting? Oops - Wikipedia forgot the article on World War II - guess I'd better help out by writing it ?. There is simply so much content here that upgrading it and keeping it clean is a valued job of and by itself. RFA is losing sight of what the buttons are for. When editors can come to RFA without fear of a slagging off for some edit summary six months ago, or without worry of embarrassment because they failed to contribute heavily to Wikiproject:Cheese Sandwich then we might find a few more people accept nominations, pass, and start getting rid of the virulent attack pages and copyright violations at CSD that otherwise will be the ultimate undoing of this project. Pedro | Chat  20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it may be an issue of time and timing. I've had a standing offer to User:ST47 for a while now, and he keeps on demurring because he doesn't want to take the time to deal with RFA when he has other things going on.  This would have been one of the benefits of the rejected idea for "proposed adminship".  Under the current climate, you need to spend at least half an hour of your life answering questions (both standard and optional) to demonstrate that you take the process seriously.  I would love nothing more than to say to ST47 (and a few other folks), "Hey, listen.  If you want sysop access, I'll put your name up for consideration.  No questions asked, nothing to worry about, just do what you've been doing and I'll see what people think."  With really established users like that, I'd support based on name recognition alone.  If we could somehow agree on an "express" system for RFA that's not so time-consuming for nominees if they don't want to spend the time, I think we'd have more admins.


 * Let me say like this: it's not that ST47 (again, I'm just using him as an example) doesn't want to be an admin. I think he wants to be an admin but doesn't want to go through the laborious process.  Maybe there's some way to tweak the process. Shalom Hello 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd support on name recognition alone - Interesting, it's just recently I'd very much got the impression that Adminship is not a popularity contest. (Which Indeed it should not be) Sorry to drag that up, but with respect supporting on the basis of seeing the name around does not seem quite as sound an idea as supporting on the basis that someone can actually help out a bit as demonstrated by contribution history. Pedro | Chat  20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, either people are not as attracted to adminship as they used to be, or people feel that RfAs are too hard, and they'd rather not waste a week going through one. I think the latter seems more reasonable. However, it could be that you're asking people that aren't really interested in adminship, and not the people who are. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My advice to nommers - it becomes obvious who wants to be an admin when you take a stroll through Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From there, you just have to see who is ready. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have made it more clear what I meant by "name recognition" - please see Editor review/ST47 3, where I looked carefully and found nothing amiss. Shalom Hello 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The RfA process itself may dissuade some candidates, particularly when they see (to choose a biased example) a decent candidate go down as a result of a single diff from their past which they were upfront about and had atoned for (OK, I'll get off my soapbox). Another factor which makes people apprehensive is that we've all seen admins targeted for some pretty egregious on- and particularly off-wiki harassment as a result of their administrative actions. It goes along with the increased visibility and the fact that every time you click "delete page" or "block user", you're quite possibly making at least one lifelong enemy on the Wiki. I suppose short of buying every disgruntled ex-Wikipedian a sense of perspective, there may be little that can be done about this. However, in my case at least, the increased exposure to negativity led me to put off accepting a nom for some time. MastCell Talk 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucratship Again?
I noticed in Requests for bureaucratship/EVula a comment by Shalom which led me to We need more bureaucrats. Now, I'm not sure I agree with everything in that essay, but it suggests to me that there is a desire for more bureaucrats, and there is something of a backlog in WP:CHU. As you can see from Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan (Nov 2004) and Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan2 (Sep 2005), I'm ready and willing to serve, but I don't want to seem overeager or powerhungry -- 3 nominations is a lot, after all. Thus this vague, open-ended question. Andre (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not endorsing a potential RFB by you but its been nearly two years since your last one. That doesn't seem to eager.   Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The actual fact of the matter is that you failed to pose a question. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, that is true, but really I'm asking for general thoughts on what I wrote. Andre (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well, personally, I think that we do need bureaucrats, lots more, but that the community at large seems shall we say, very defensive of the extra tools. We collectively seem to be caught in the paradox of both agreeing that we need more bureacrats but making it very difficult for a candidate to possibly pass. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As a side note: No wonder we need more 'crats, RFBs can fail even if 83% of votes are to support. And as a second side note, I guess the amount of question asked at RFAs (or RFBs) has increased greatly in less than two years.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * RfBs have historically required 90% support to pass. Since RfXs aren't treated as strict votes anymore, I think the standard is generally higher for RfBs. We do need more... watch this space ;)  Majorly  (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat here a response I made to Shalom re: Wikipedians apparent sentiment on RfB:


 * Shalom, I have to disagree with at least part of your general perspective on the stringency of RfBs. As we have observed, even a single controversial call (Danny, outstandingly) by bureaucrats can create an uproar that not only creates problems and conflict for the closing bureaucrat(s), but for all active bureaucrats; but, much more importantly, they chip away at the confidence of the great body of Wikipedians in the entire process. The heart of the problem, as I see it, is that one big part of bureaucrat duties is fairly uncontroversial: username changes; the other major part, promotions, requires straightforward and active engagement with the community, often in the face of attacks that can rise to the level of personal attacks. We don't currently have the ability to make someone a namechange 'crat without making them a promotion 'crat. Is this a danger? Consider the instances in which crats who don't usually promote (or do any crat work, for that matter) sometimes surface to make a controversial "push of the button." To paraphase an old expression: "if we want new bureaucrats in the worst way, that is exactly how we will get them." The impression I get from those who say "we don't need more bureaucrats" is that many are really saying "we don't need more bureaucrats just for the sake of having more bureaucrats." If the former case were the real sentiment, then I suppose my own re-RfB would have encountered a lot more opposition. It is evident that as popular as some users are (and we can usually assume justly so) Wikipedians want to be comfortable and confident with new bureaucrats, which is different than that a person is smart, or nice, or funny, or popular. If the community can feel comfortable with any decision that any bureaucrat makes, without demanding logical justification and firm, straightforward engagement with the community, then I guess it doesn't matter what our bureaucrat standards are, does it?

Now if you were ask me what one thing caused EVula RfB to fail is that I believed he hasn't yet acquired the temperament that most are looking for in a 'crat. Humor is good, very good, I have a dry sense of humor which would have gotten me into a lot more trouble in real life if I weren't so big. (My size buys me time to explain that I'm making a joke before the offended person finishes considering whether trying to punch me out is a good idea). But humor when people are asking you a straight question and you are occupying a position of trust can be very off-putting. I don't think his responding to individual opposes was bad, but the argumentation definitely was. -- Cecropia 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing that needs to be said from that, though: making "promote" bureaucrats and "name-change" bureaucrats is really easy, from a technical standpoint. If the community desires to do so, there's no technical hurdle to it. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things -- I think the RFB standards should be lowered to say 80% support, because those admins asking to crats (which we need more of) just cant pass. Another thing - who would make such a decision as to lower such standards? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonymous, remember it's not a % vote :)  Majorly  (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course -- my mistake. :) I'll say 4/5 support then? ;) Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No according to the RFA main page "the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, generally requiring a consensus of at least 85%" so it is in actuality a % vote.   Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think Black Harry is right. So 4/5, 80%... chalk and cheese. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The 85% bit was added in by myself a while back, when I was uninformed. Taken from the Guide to RfA, which was added in without any consensus whatsoever. Black Harry read correctly, but believe me, that info is wrong and ought to be removed. However, we do go by a consensus on RfBs. Just not measured in %.  Majorly  (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Got it. We should really new in dent soon eh? :) Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The Wikipedia community. Bureaucratship is just a technical ability granted by the community (whether it is a political ability as well is an entirely different issue), so it is the community's role to decide what standard should be use for approving candidates. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the bureaucrat's job is just to push a button, and the community accepts that a bureaucrat pushes the button (or not) without complaint or seeking a reason, then bureaucrat is just a technical ability, and we can easily write a bot to do it. -- Cecropia 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an important difference between a bot and a human - humans can actually reason. If what Cecropia says is true, every admin and crat, for the good of wikipedia, should now abolish their tools, and thats not an impingement on Cecropia. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just speaking from the MediaWiki point of view. The reason we don't grant those technical abilities to everyone is because they're sensitive. Originally they were granted a bit more liberally, and then standards just kept toughening up... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, Andre. Grand master  ka  00:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerking idea
I'd like to bring further attention to my idea about clerking an RFA before it goes live, to make sure that any nominations that enter the "mainstream" (which would be the actual RFA page) are not blatantly premature, have an actual proper assessed chance of passing or otherwise are authentic requests for the tools. This clerking system I am proposing would be "clerked" by a group of users designated (probably crats, but possibly sysops and, maybe, if people thinks its a good ideas, normal users) and would act as a filter, allowing good nominations as defined by a certain criteria that would have to be designed by consensus to pass and go live and disallowing "bad" (sorry, I am looking for a better word here!) or "unlikely" nominations from entering the RFA page proper. Done this way, new users, "troubled" (again, please feel free to chance the previous word if you can think of a better and more tactful one) users or users otherwise unlikely to (even get close to) pass(ing) their RFA would be able to be notified in a friendly manner that "submitting an RFA right now is not really a good idea" by the clerks, and would not have to go through the stress of having their RFA bloodbath-ed. I think that such a clerking system would almost completely resolve some of the issues we are experiencing with biting in premature/unlikely requests. I just want to know what the community thinks of my idea. Obviously, even the idea is not rock-solid, and is welcome to complete discussion/criticism or changing. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident  Talk 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This only introduces a new level of unwanted bureaucracy to the RfA process (yes, that argument again). RfA noms are easily added and removed; if you are trying to protect candidates from "having their RFA bloodbath-ed," then the ones that ought to change are the editors pouring torrents of blood on candidates, not the process itself. Also, this leads to diffusion of responsibility on the part of the RfA commenters; any absurd oppose comment could have a rationale along the lines of "It's not my fault. The RfA screening committee offered up such a patently unfit candidate," which exacerbates the other "perennial problem" of RfA: absurd oppose comments. Another point is that this splits RfA into "round 1" and "round 2," both equally harsh, both equally intimidating, etc. — Kurykh  04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This requires that we decide on a set standard for applicants, which just isn't happening. Obviously, there is some disagreement about what "bloodbath" qualifies as; you called DOSGuy's RfA a "bloodbath" which the applicant themselves disagreed with. Nothing personal, but you've got a solution looking for a problem. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said it was my definition, I said it would have to be a definition defined by consensus. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Over the last few months, myself and others have worked to get rid of clerk positions in a number of areas. We don't need a new one cropping up. This just adds layers of bureaucracy, and would set arbitrary measurements on what is and is not a likely to succeed RfA. This further raises the bar on becoming an administrator. We need to *lower* the bar, not raise it. --Durin 04:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Everyone: thanks for your comments. I think that Durin says is right, but are we really going to lower the bar to say 400 to 500 edits? Because thats the approximate level of "filtration" I would expect (after a consensus by people about what should be filtered and what shouldnt) in the clerking system. I'm talking blatant here. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh... my first reaction to the idea was positive but I've got to say that the above arguments are pretty solid: it seems like a lot of overhead for a marginal benefit. I still think we could alleviate some of the problems about bloodbath RfAs by 1) boldly removing these as soon as they turn ugly 2) constantly reminding people who go overboard with their oppose messages to tone it down 3) making sure that the pages explaining how to create an RfA are written carefully to avoid too many disastrous self-noms. Pascal.Tesson 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the clerking idea aside, I think that we need to make the commonly accepted standards for adminship much clearer and perhaps even a little more... I hesitate to say it... tactless, warning users that a certain amount of experience/edits/trust from the community is required, not just informing them. If this changes, maybe new users or users otherwise not ready for the mop will think to themselves "geez, maybe this is not the best time for me to be running for adminship". Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This goes back to the imposing-arbitrary-numbers debacle Wikipedia tends to avoid. — Kurykh  05:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just saying, in a nutshell, that perhaps a more steady and rigid approach is required. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's no sense in being too dogmatic about it: although I agree that writing anywhere you must have x many edits is a bad idea, we could at least make sure that the instructions on the how-to-nominate page lists as step 1 "Read Guide to requests for adminship and evaluate whether you have better odds than the proverbial snowball". Pascal.Tesson 05:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pascal. Whats the point in being deliberately tactful and vague when it really is to no-ones benefit, and may be misleading to people who really are not ready to take a shot at the mop? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Being concrete on numbers not only goes against Wikipedia's ideals, but binds the encyclopedia and the community into a fix where it cannot act on a case-by-case basis, a scene seen quite often in the legal system. — Kurykh  05:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned anything about numbers. And I'm all for acting in a case-by-case manor. I just think things should be clearer to ensure the message is delivered intact. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what is your proposal regarding this? We seemed to have drifted from a screening committee to something more general... — Kurykh  06:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a very good concept, though one I may not agree entirely, but the approach needs tuning. — Kurykh  06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the whole, at the end of the day, when it all comes down to it, when all is said and done, and all of those other strange phrases which literally mean: when you look at it from an ultimate perspective: RFA needs to change. I dont know what to do. I dont know if anyone does. Perhaps something extremely radical, like unplugging the whole process, changing everything and just starting over. Perhaps not. Obviously, the former's not going to just happen, but we can start by making some minor changes to try and resolve the numerous flaws we are currently experiencing with, in my opinion, a corrupted Request for adminship system.  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to start contributing to RFA discussions, because I'm disappointed by many of the responses. In deciding whether I support or oppose a nomination, I'm going to ask myself two questions: 1) does this person understand how Wikipedia works?, and 2) can I trust them? The answer to both questions will be based on whether or not the user has made a reasonable number of edits without damaging any articles or being in a fight with anyone. By that standard, I suspect that the majority of nominations would be successful. Is there a reason why it isn't already that simple? I don't see anything wrong with the process. I had to read the self-nomination procedure a couple of times because it sounded like the process was going to be more automated than it was, but I was able to make the necessary corrections. There were three reasonable questions to answer, and I made a statement. It was both easy and straightforward. I don't think the problem is with the process, but with the voters. There seems to be a lot of elitism associated with the position, and a general feeling that an editor needs to have done something heroic to deserve additional privileges. Keep it simple, folks. If someone has proven that they know what they're doing, and they indicate that they want to be even more helpful, I'm inclined to help them do it. The process will work if we allow it to, by understanding what should be expected of the applicants. DOSGuy 06:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When I say process, I technically mean the format, the process, the voters, perhaps even the crats, the questions, the editcounters... everything. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly new to following and voting on the RFAs. My first impression was that some voters make a big deal out of what's supposedly not a big deal. Some voters suggest that certain candidates show no need for "the tools". My opinion is that if they're responsible and constructive with the tools they've got now, what is the problem with giving them a bigger toolkit? My basic criteria so far has been similar to DOSGuy's: (1) Does the editor seem competent and knowledgeable with regards to Wikipedia? (2) Is the editor fairly civil and oriented to resolving conflicts? (3) Is there any reason not to trust this editor? --<font color="#3333FF">健次 (derumi)talk 06:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to the other problems cited, such as adding another layer of *cough* bureaucracy, there is also the problem that this "clerking" will inevitably require judgment calls. What happens when someone is irritated that one RfA was "clerked" out of existence while a similar one wasn't? Now we'll have two RfA issues to fight over: the initial cut and then the closing. -- Cecropia 06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the idea wasnt meant to invlolve an s/o/n thing, but be just between the candidate and the clerk. It doesnt matter -- no-one is taking to the idea, and thats fine too. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I suggested to you in a thread above, Anonymous Dissident, when newbies are being bitten, we ought to work to prevent people from biting them rather than keeping them out of the way. --bainer (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Thebainer -- but why not try to do both, as my proposal suggests? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, am wary of the idea of adding another hurdle to the process. I especially cringe at the idea of quantifying eligibility or leaving judgement calls to the discretion of a select few. I think the only problem with the process is people's expectations. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization; our only currency is trust. People need to be able to trust the content of the wiki, therefore we need to be able to trust the people who have editorial power. If a candidate has been doing good work for some time, and not doing any harm, and possibly made a comment or two that shows a reasonable level of thoughtfulness and maturity, they've met my minimum expectation for any applicant requesting a position of trust. We all have different standards before someone earns our trust, but I don't measure my trust in TOEs (thousands of edits). My trust is earned by demonstrating a history of contributing quality edits, and not causing conflicts. Earn my trust and you've got the gig. Again, keep it simple. I have no objection to any part of the process, except for the criteria that someone people use to justify an opposing vote. Anyway, no sense in beating a dead horse; I've made my point. DOSGuy 06:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said! Grand  master  ka  07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have made your point, a good one. But I think you need to realise that the criteria for opposition can often be parallel to the criteria for adminship, and thats what the whole idea is based around, yes? Thats why I'm proposing something radical be done to the whole of RFA. A complete revolution. I think a start from scratch, and a new core of RFA functionality is needed. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm always willing to consider something radical. If someone wants to start the process, I'll gladly offer my input. I don't oppose changing the process, but I do have concerns about adding steps to the process. Anyone who submits an application should be prepared for rejection. As far as preventing bloodbaths, that's an example of the need for a change in voters' attitudes. Let's be constructive, let's be nice, and let's not set the bar unreasonably high. DOSGuy 07:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That where the problem is. Many users fully expect to be promoted, and are not ready for rejection. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No one likes rejection, but dealing with rejection requires maturity, which is one of the things I expect from a successful candidate. If voters can be polite, constructive, and reasonable, a mature candidate should be able to handle it. If not, the opposers made a good choice. DOSGuy 07:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone has to oppose. if we all just sit there and add our moral supports, or for those who want to be extra-nice, our full fledged supports, then the candidate, who we dont really want to see chucked the tools, will pass the RFA. Even if we follow your rule, the worst, most premature RFAs will always turn out to be ugly, because there is no other way an RFA riddled with (apologetic, boxed-in, weak) opposes can look. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Being up front about a candidate's current state of unpreparedness (while offering constructive criticism) is not considered being ugly, but rather is being honest and truly encouraging to the candidate in question, and that is truly what RfA should be: a honest yet constructive critique of whether an editor is trusted by the community to be given the tools of adminship. — Kurykh  07:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree. Unfortunately, as I have stated time and again, we are far from a Utopian RFA system, and thats not always going to happen. Infact, it appears to be happening less and less and thats why I propose that we make some really radical changes. We need to really take a look at what we are doing here at RFA and on Wikipedia at large, and whether the RFA system is irrepairably corrupted. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope I haven't implied that I want to set the bar that low! I want experienced, trustworthy people to be able to contribute, and I want people to be reasonable in their decision process. That's all I'm trying to say, and I don't think my opinion is radically different from the other contributors to this discussion. This isn't as big a problem as I may have made it sound. In fact, I think this discussion is in good hands. I'm going to bed. :) DOSGuy 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bureaucracy, a subject of talk recently, which I think could be tied in somewhere here, is strange. It can be a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on perspective. It embeds authority and order, and quite often fairness, but it quite often does the opposite too. Talk about paradoxical. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything that is grossly wrong with the present RfA system. Whatever "radical changes" are brought about, any new system will probably be as far from a Utopian RfA as the present one. And that is because of the people, not the system. But I do think the system needs an occasional "shakeup". By a shakeup, I mean occasional activism by established users to try to set right faulty reasoning on RfAs. This is because of the very nature of Wikipedia. Because of the number of people that are currently on Wikipedia and the number of people that keep joining in, there are bound to be a bunch of people who just don't get it, at least in the beginning. The only solution is to discuss with them. Changing the system is not going help because there will be other dissidents then too. :) Anyway, repeating what others have already said, I too think this clerking is not such a good idea. Bloodbaths should be avoided by cutting down on stupid and incivil oppose reasoning. Not by adding an extra filter. And it is not a waste of the community's time. The rarest of the rare RfA, that passes even though it was obviously looked as if it was going to fail, is justification enough for the time spent. - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Two Oars. Whenever someone proposes radical changes on RFA, all we get is a whole bunch of talk page elongation, a straw poll (even more evil than the tally), and nothing really happens. We have a nice message box on the top for a "Reform on RFA" page, and what did we get out of it? Maybe we're just going the wrong way with trying to totally reform RFA. There's always going to be a few "nonconformists" out there anyways. As for filtering, it's just another example of instruction creep. There's reasons why we have WP:IAR and WP:SNOW.  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When thought out, i think Two Oars is probably right. But there must be something to be done to somehow make clearer the standards and rules of RFA so there are less of these RFA dissidents (except me, of course ;) and more people understanding what is truly required to pass a request for adminship. If we cant perfect the system, we can try and improve on what we have to work on. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA tally bot
I run a bot, SpebiBot, and one of its future tasks is to update the tally on each individual RfA page currently transcluded on the RfA main page. A similar bot, Tangobot, does other similar tasks which include the RfA infobox (you know the one). I've contacted him to ask if he could assign Tangobot to do this task, but he is not interested in adding this to Tangobot, but he has allowed me SpebiBot to complete this task. Does anyone see any possible problems that the bot may cause? Kind regards, Sebi  <sub style="color: darkgreen;">&#91; talk &#93; 07:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its a great idea. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Must vote. Must vote. Must vote. Must vote. THE TALLY IS MEANINGLESS. This just further entrenches the god-awful idea that RfA is a vote. It ISN'T a vote. Far better to simply REMOVE the tallies all together. --Durin 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tally is bad. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In principal the bot is a great idea. If they are going to stay here, why not have a bot to at least make sure they are accurate? This post discusses updating tallies, not removing them. It wont increase the perception that RFA is a vote, its just making sure the tallies are accurate. The numbers displayed on the tally wont make a difference to that perception, which is all the bot would do: change the numbers. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The tally is not really necessary in the first place. No need to update it. <font color="#3D59AB">Leebo  <font color="#2A8E82">T /<font color="#2A8E82"> C 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (double edit conflict) It is always brought up when someone mentions a tally bot, how bad the tally is. If we are going to have a tally, we might as well have a working one. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Greeves (talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the tally is bad. They are even worse when they are not accurate. With this bot, the tallies would be that much better, and actually serve their purpose. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Their purpose is to count the discussion - but you can't count a discussion.  Majorly  (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then that brings into light why # are used instead of * in the discussion. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd isn't it? The header is labelled "Discussion", yet it's set out like a vote, but then again it isn't a vote, because if it was we'd not allow any comments whatsoever, just a name sign, and we'd have no candidates ever passing below the traditional 75% support. It's a discussion alright, but the page simply hasn't evolved yet, and every time me and other certain users try to update the template to show that, we get reverted. The confusion, thus will stick.  Majorly  (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ever thought that maybe its a combination of a discussion and a vote? It seems that way to me, and maybe a vote - with a discussion attached - isnt such a bad thing after all. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should try to avoid a pile on, the user only suggested it, nothing has been actually planned here, I dont think the bot is a good idea but the tally is a vital part of RfA, although it is not a vote. The Sunshine Man is now <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Vital" is not the word that comes to my mind. More like "decorative" ;)  Majorly  (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent and ec'd twice post Majorly, so this is not a pile on) And just how will this new "tally counting" bot deal with "Moral Support", "Neutral towards oppose", "Weak Support", "Strongest Possible Oppose" and all the other vaguries that can only come out of a discussion and not a simple YES/NO/ABSTAIN vote? Will it be able to second guess these implications? I doubt it. I'm with Majorly on this - we'd do better discussing and fixing the whole RFA template / process rather than fiddling about deciding if we need another "tally". I'm not dismissing your hard work, but I'm struggling to see how it helps move the whole of RFA forward. Pedro | Chat  14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote is good. Bot is good. Votebot is doubleplus good. Haukur 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who think that votebot is good is doubleplusungood, and self-evidently does not understand Wikipedia at all. Moreschi Talk 16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with dissident, RFAs should be both a vote and a discussion.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Wikipedia works by consensus, not numbers, and bots are a necessary evil to be avoided at all costs. Moreschi Talk 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but please don't remove them from the template. This has been discussed so much, I don't think there is any possible argument that hasn't already been made. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Has it? Sorry, hadn't realised. Moreschi Talk 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure if you're serious or being sarcastic, but either way...no apology needed/it's an argument that spans all time. I personally prefer the tallies because I can get a quick look at people's opinions. I then read the actually comments, and of course check out the user myself. I don't really care that much, but it's a personal preference. I was just hoping stem an edit war before it started; tends to happen with that template. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  16:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, serious. Can't keep up with absolutely every bloody wikidrama. See, thing is, IMO most people just check the tallies and then vote. So much for giving a reasoned opinon, or actually checking out the candidate's contributions, or forming your own thoughts. This is not something to be encouraged. Moreschi Talk 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And just to be clear, I don't actually support this bot idea. I like the tallies, but if they aren't updated, it's not the end of the world. We certainly don't need a bot doing it for us. I also tend to agree more with your edit summary than your actual statement. If people would actually discuss, not simply say "support per above" or "oppose because a self nom" the process would work perfectly. As it is, I still believe it works...but nothing is perfect. I just don't see the tallies making anything worse. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Without making any comment on whether the tally should exist in the first place, it doesn't seem that it would be of any value for a bot to update the tally. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Purists will disagree but IMO, the present system of RfA discussion-cum-vote is quite ok. Making it a pure discussion will give too much at the crats' discretion. Not to insult the crats, but I am never comfortable leaving so much to one individual. Making it a vote will have its own attendent problems. The whole popularity contest and strength of argument thing. It is good as it is now, where in most cases, we can tell which way the sentiment is, but with some flexibility. And the numbering and subdivision into support/oppose/neutral helps in this. Back to the bot, I don't think it is so necessary to keep the tally updated. Of course I use the Tangobot table to check on the general trend at RfAs (because I prefer to comment on RfAs which are failing because of what I think are absurd or nonsensical reasons). There too, I find the colors more useful than the numbers. But what is the need in updating the tally after every comment? As it is now, someone or the other updates the tally at least once a day, which should be enough. If some of you find it difficult to update the tallies manually, there is no pressing need to do so. I don't see any problems with a tally bot, I just find it rather unnecessary. - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See, this is the thing: if we don't trust the crats, what are they there for? If we don't trust them to properly make judgment calls when it comes to RfA, what are they there for? It's also worth noting that in each of the cases where the crats have promoted (shock horror!) below the recommended numbers (and they are only recommended, or else this really is a vote), they have not been wrong: Carnildo, Ryulong, Danny - not desysopped yet, I see. Personally, I am quite willing to chuck RfA at the crats, because they are supposed to be Highly Clueful People whose judgment I can back. Moreschi Talk 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We need a few responsible people to check for sockpuppets and handle unexpected contingencies. They don't need to do more than that. Haukur 16:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that most other Wikipedias don't have this idea you're celebrating of Highly Clueful People whom everyone should trust and who know better than the rest of us schmucks who should be promoted around here. They are supposed to be bureaucrats, not the Guardian Council. Haukur 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More fool them. We pick admins for their judgment, and ask them to make difficult decisions that require good judgment. We pick crats along similar, but even more stringent, criteria - and then turn round and say they're supposed to act in an almost bot-like manner. Ridiculous. Moreschi Talk 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that I do look at the tallies. If a tally shows something like 63/0/1 and I don't know the nominee, I see little that I can add to the discussion and will often move on. If it is something like 40/10/2, I'll almost always want to take a look to see if I can tip the scale one way or the other. If it's 30/50/20, I'll probably be a rubber-necker to see what happened to cause the wreck. And if it's 99/0/0 I may just join the pile on. Anything to help filter out the noise is useful to me. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Moreschi)Of course we need to trust crats, but only to a certain extent. The discretion they have now is enough. Why change a working system? RfA is not broken. And remember that it is very difficult for us to decide on which person is Highly Clueful. That is why RfBs fail though there is a feeling the there is a shortage of crats. On a side note, without taking names, I have to say the RfA examples you have given illustrate the problem I have with crat discretion. Decisions taken at a single individual's discretion generate more acrimonious debate, discussion and dissent than those taken by a group. The reason those particular admins have not been desysopped is not necessarily because they have done nothing wrong. It could be because users, once they pass RfA are judged much more leniently (possibly because of the kind of work they do, acquiring enemies as they go) and because as of now desysopping is much more difficult than sysopping. This is purely for argument's sake. I am not commenting on anyone in particular. - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it that this idea is not going too well. If all of you are so worried about RfA turning into a voting system, then just remove this whole tally thing in the RfA template. But if it is going to stay, why not keep it accurate? In response to Pedro, I'm not talking about creating a new tally and updating it, I'm talking about those numbers inside the brackets at the top of the RfA: (#/#/#). Even if one user decides to strongly oppose another user's RfA, it is still a oppose, whether it be a weak or strong. Sebi  <sub style="color: darkgreen;">&#91; talk &#93; 05:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with the above. If we are going to have a tally, then at least make it acuurate. If not - then lets remove it already! Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're going to have RfA, at least make it perfect. Since it's not, let's eliminate it! Okay, I'm sorry if this was over the line and stretched reductio ad absurdum too far, but I had to use it to illustrate something: that it's not an all-or-nothing thing. It's only a tally, and we're making a big fuss about it. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you are showing signs of OCD (not making fun of those who do have it), then update it manually. — Kurykh  06:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replt to Spebi. Which is the point. A Moral Support is not an actual support. A Neutral towards Oppose is not an abstention. Trying to take the various semantic options used by editors at RFA and straight-jacketing them into three boxes simply continues and re-inforces the belief RFA is a vote. I've nothing against automating the process, it's just I doubt the bot will also double as a Turing machine. Pedro | Chat  07:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's bureaucrat week!
...Three candidacies were put up just today, and I know of a fourth considering running (up above.) I feel like putting in my own just to add to the fun. Grand master  ka  21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of nominating myself before I saw the other two nominations, but they just gave me that little extra push to do it. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 21:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is so interesting I may have to run too.  Black Harry  • Happy Independence Day  21:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record that was a joke (im not even an admin)  Black Harry • Happy Independence Day  21:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should try running, just to make this fun:). Wizardman  21:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this should be interesting. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The law of averages says that at least one of the three should pass.  Black Harry  • Happy Independence Day  21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the law of RFB's says, well, you'll see. Wizardman  21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we don't need any bureaucrats right now. Whatever.  Fizz.  These aren't the droids you're looking for.  Move along, move along... The Rambling Man 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrat week? I love it... Acalamari 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the success rate of RfBs, we may pretty soon end up calling it slaughterhouse week. (not that I want to jinx any of them) Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Gustafson likened RFB to a middle school dance... it just takes one person stepping onto the floor to shake loose a few wallflowers nervous they'll loose their chance. --W.marsh 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's going to be interesting, definitely. It would shock me if none of these 3 succeed. — An as  talk? 22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's got to be a better analogy than the middle school dance... Maybe the RfB candidates are like knights going to slay the big dragon; each thinks they have a chance, but in the end, they all get toasted to death one by one. If none of these three succeed, maybe I'll find myself riding off on that lonely road towards certain doom once more. :-) Grand  master  ka  22:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the dance is quite a good analogy. Almost all RfBs start off well, then one person opposes and it goes downhill. I guess it's because people read the opposer, and if s/he's got a good point, people agree with them. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we shall all see the outcome of this very interesting week at WP:RFA. We all know how RFBs have this nasty way of coming back at some one. All it takes is 1 oppose out of 10 to bring em back down to borderline. All the best luck to them though. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the heck is the crat promotion % so high? Shouldn't 85% percent cut it enough?  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Theres two sides to that argument - we are giving these people extra-administrative tools. Thats quite a big deal: while adminship may be not a big deal, I dont think Jimbo has ever said that Bureaucratship isnt a biggie. Then again, i think 85% would be more fair, you know, so that we actually have some crats? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Raising the support percentage wouldn't help. Most recent failed RfBs haven't failed by a little, they've failed by a lot. Changing the support threshold wouldn't accomplish too much. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would help a little, surely... Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick inspection of Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies indicates that lower the support percentage by 5% (or probably even 20%) would have not increased the promotion rate. Of course, this cannot account for the future, but I'd say it's a pretty good indicator. Quick calculations reveal the highest support of all the failed RfB's recently was 72% exactly. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So what your saying is that there has never been an unsuccessful RFB that was very close to passing? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In 2007, EVula's was the closest with 72%. The only bureaucrat promoted in 2007 is User:Cecropia, who was a former bureaucrat, and his was at 95%. So lowering the bar by 5% would have made no difference to the candidates so far this year. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems stranbge that there, you know, havent been any on the fence a bit. I think it would be just terrible if you got like 85% and didnt pass. RFB just seems too impossible, and we honestly do need more crats. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) If mine and Husond's RfBs carry on this way, then we will both be promoted. I agree that all prior evidence has indicated that it's been impossible, but something seems to have changed. Someone suggested having three simultaneous nominations up helps put forward the point that we need more bureaucrats. We'll just have to see how the current RfBs go. If one of them passes, then it indicates there isn't a problem with RfB anymore, even if there was before. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Nihonjoe's 2nd was close, as was Ram-Man's back in 2006. But all the rest have been quite a way off consensus to pass.  Majorly  (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My quick inspection was a little too quick, it seems. He had 81%. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I myself had 83% - 50/10/0 - in my 2nd nomination. Andre (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally would like to see RFB be something perhaps 1/4 as regular as RFA ie: if there are 12 RFAs going on, I wouldnt mind seeing a regular pattern of having 3 RFBs going on - regularly. I think that we need loads more crats. The extra tools, which arent that much of a radical step up from the normal mop, should be given out to more and more trustworthy admins. I think also that the message has got out that we just need more crats, and thats why the RFBs are currently going so well. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

4 now!!! Anonymous Dissident Talk 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This diff shows why we have can't jump to conclusions yet. The supporters shows up the first day, as shown here, then the opposers start flying in, and even if it's a small number, the RfB fails. And just when I posted this a FOURTH RFB started? This is crazy. Wizardman 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Crazy good if one or more passes. We need more bcrats. And yes, you're right Wizardman. The outcome of an RfB isn't certain until it's actually ended. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reckon this will appear in the Wikipedia Signpost? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably should do. It's a bit unprecedented. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the bandwagon effect is what is driving all of these admins to try for RFB, at least all at once. It is quite possible we will see even more. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that the RFBs are mostly supported right now shows that there is general consensus that we need more bureaucrats, I believe. The fact that the candidates are good helps of course. Wizardman  02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it shows that. Frankly, the cynical side of me is wondering when these RfBs are going to follow the course of more recent requests. (The immoral side is wondering if I should set up a betting pool.) It is my sincere hope that none will, and that all candidates will get a fair trial. Best of luck to RfB candidates! Grace notes T § 02:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All that can be definitely said is that its going to be a very interesting week. We could have four (or more) crats by the end of this, or we could have none. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Or we could have more than 4 if some people become enticed by the bandwagon. Wizardman  02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, I can see that happening. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people are thinking this through very carefully. 3 RfBs a week? I truly think that would be an incredible disaster for the project. Consider how often a group of administrators gets in a wheel war, it ends up at ArbCom, and the project loses half a dozen or more good editors in the bloodbath. If that happened with bureaucrats at an RFA? I can envision a scenario where dozens of editors are driven from the project in the ensuing explosion. Having incredibly high standards for RfB is a good thing. Okay, some times people have to wait a couple days at WP:CHU -- but is clearing up this backlog worth the inevitable destabilization that would inevitably be caused by a large group of bureaucrats? Just look at the last couple controversial RfAs. If Gracenotes or CharlotteWebb had been handled rashly we would still be dealing with the fall-out. The bureaucrats of wikipedia are one of the only groups that is near universally trusted. There are people who don't trust ArbCom or CheckUsers and tons of people don't trust admins. By hastily promoting bureaucrats, without subjecting them to intense scrutiny and rigorous standards we risk jeopardizing their standing as perhaps the most respected members of our community. Is that really the price we're willing to pay so that nobody ever has to wait 4 days for a change of user name? --JayHenry 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a question we can only answer when this week is over, as trying to answer it now will result in a very sticky mess. But meanwhile, please don't let it prevent you from giving all of these bureaucrat candidates a fair trial. No capable individual deserves to fail because of a trend that may not even exist. Yes, Bad Things happen. Sometimes Really Bad Things happen. The project survives. You can do your part in preventing these Bad Things by objectively analyzing each candidate for/against whom you plan on voting. Grace notes T § 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt a hundred rogue, wiki-suicidal crats could do anything long-lasting/truly detramental to the project. There are more powerful positions - a steward from meta could just come and flag them down. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 03:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Gracenotes, and I will certainly hold these candidates today to a standard no different than any other RfB. My point is not about these specific candidates (one of whom, yes, I've already opposed) but rather about having very high standards for RfB in general.  I've seen some comments at WT:RFA that people who oppose RfBs are being ridiculous.  And I understand the frustration of watching someone you feel is a good candidate fail a request (in fact, I felt this frustration most poignantly with Gracenotes' now infamous RfA).  So in response to that, I wanted to chime in to defend the high RfB standards. --JayHenry 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What with all of these crat nominations...
I was just wondering - what with all of these 'crat noms, does anyone think the interest in normal RFA is a write off this week? It already seems that the RFBs are garnering a lot of attention, more than all of the other RFAs put together. I might be wrong; things just seem less "traffic-ked" at the normal RFA. Anonymous Dissident Talk 04:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Recently I noticed a major lull in RfA participation altogether. Maybe people are taking the summer off. :-) Grand  master  ka  04:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not me - I'm down here in Australia, and rugging up computer-side for Winter. Yep, its Winter where I am! Anonymous Dissident  Talk 04:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea of less RfA traffic seems logical with more bureaucrat nominations. I do not think that this is anything to worry about, however. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Be on the lookout though, this is the right week for Willy on Wheels to pass RfA under the radar. Pascal.Tesson 04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd jump in too, but I'm not confident enough. I made a typo in an edit summary once :( &mdash; Deckiller 05:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deckiller - I'd actually say that this is the prime moment for an RFB. While not all of the attention is not solely on you -- there are 4 other candidates to share the attention. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not running. I was just making a joke about why I'd probably never run :) &mdash; Deckiller 05:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt mean to infer that you specifically should run, I just meant I think this would be a good time. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I might give it a shot, although I haven't been completely satisfied with my contributions lately (stress has led to a few comments that aren't uncivil, but I still nevertheless regret). &mdash; Deckiller 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not to be inflicted with The Disease, but 28k edits is pretty sweet. Id support you for this, for what I've seen of you policy wise, and because you seem like a good contributor. As I said, if you are thinking of it, this chance, where 4 (and potentially 5) are being speculated over at once, will probably never come again. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I consider running for RFA after the third nom went live since I think I'd have a better chance of slipping under the radar. I decided not too considering i fail my own standards tho.  Black Harry • Happy Independence Day  06:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe.. Put  perimeters on your request and leave it on RFA for 7 days.... Totally foolproof plan, until a 'crat gets suspicious at the lack of comments... Damn beans... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls    talk 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what Darkfall said but get yourself like 2 or 3 sups then hide it. :) Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think people are realizing the situation. since the second RFB went live we've had 4 RFAs go live, in less than 12 hours.  Black Harry • Happy Independence Day  06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It might not be to their advantage though... Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier (need more admins...) although the last few requests might be provoked by this discussion. -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6 requests and counting.... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 07:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note: many of them appear to be premature (no offence). Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

5th Crat nom
We are now up to five. Is this the bandwagon effect here? Will there be more?? Anonymous Dissident Talk 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense... 6 requests for adminship (2 withdrawn), and five 'crat ones... 11 today. Well, I say a bureaucrat needs to be promoted to accommodate these requests.... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that there is an increasing chance that more admins will try for cratdom as more do try. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Make that 6 admins trying out for 'crat. -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My prediction was correct. Mark my words - we will have more overnight/day. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonder how many RFAs will happen overnight... With so much attention focused in RFB, I wouldn't be surprised if a rfa request only has a few users' attention. -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never seen so many Crat' noms at once, how very perplexing. <font color="#151B8D">K <font color="#7D1B7E">O <font color="#6D7B8D ">S | <font color="#461B7E">talk  10:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No-one has. It is a first... I think. Strike if incorrect :) Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest I won't be surprised to see 8 by end of this week. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly 10 at this rate. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bureaucratship is certainly "no big deal" now... ;) - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Its still a big deal - a big deal lots of people currently want a shot at :) Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Herd behaviour and Bandwagon effect. Wiki-trends grow and die. I remember it happening with the userboxen and creation of Portals. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned bandwagon effect. See above. Your probably right. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If only it became "cool" to write GAs and FAs. That is a craze that would truly help the project. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is cool to write GAs and FAs in my opinion. Thats why I've written 3 GAs (not to boast) Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Think that's impressive? See Awadewit. He writes FAs faster than I can get an article to B class... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 11:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not that impressive. See User:Yomangani and User:Blnguyen for some great article writers. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think this is a good thing as we need more bureaucrats, <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 11:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, not everyone shares that view... Many oppose RFBs just because they think there's no need.... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 11:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6 noms... The one that is impressive for FA's is DrKiernan, and as we all know he basically set an Rfa turnaruound record, for a near-snowball situation to the bureaucrat discrection range. During his RfA, he had six FA's; now he has 8, which means he wrote 2 FA's in about 2 weeks. That's impressive. <font face="Arial"><font color="#FF7133">Evilclown93 (talk)  11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a shame, however I think We need more bureaucrats is totally factual and true on that note. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Back to the FA writers point, let this list speak for itself. No boasting needed here :) <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The info now is at Wikipedia records. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah I was just about to link that! :)<font color="#151B8D">K <font color="#7D1B7E">O <font color="#6D7B8D ">S | <font color="#461B7E">talk  11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was worried someone would link it before with so many users participating in the discussion. Every single time so far I've been in an edit conflict. Man, it's getting annoying. :p <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 11:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - edit conflicts are the single most annoying thing on the project. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How 'bout trolling? -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 12:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dark Falls here, trolling is not only the most annoying thing but the biggest danger to Wikipedia. It is the primary reason that cause good editors to leave. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 12:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt really stop to consider, but when thought out, I guess trolling is the most annoying thing. Edit conflicting is somewhere near the top though. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * DarkFalls - I know you've been here for ages today; remember at the start of the day? It looked like everyone was going to pass this RFB madness. Things look so different now eh? Many are bordering, where they were clean only a few hours back. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's either this, or finish GTA:San Andreas again on the computer... And I'm suppose to be studying for some seniors work... Anyways, must be a record day for RFA, and you're right about some requests borderlining... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 12:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then again, id be surprised if there ever was a successful RFB that wasnt bordering... Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It used to be better in the early days.... I remember an RFB passing without any opposes. -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A successful 'cratship with the user having 3700 edits. The glory days.... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Must consider 3700 edits was huge back in 04. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not huge...just average. I recall Angela having something like 20,000 back then, but my edit counter's stuffed... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 12:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting confused with like mid 02 - 03 arent I? Oh well. My edit counters stuffed too. Was just wanting to check mine now and it blew... Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Majorly has withdrawn his nom but at present all five noms are above the 90% threshold that's typically required to pass. --Deskana (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its still a close thing. Only a couple of the current ones are "sort of safely" above the border. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * technically, they all still have a "chance", but remember it's early, already Husond's is starting to fall. Wizardman  15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * AMIB's not looking so sweet, and Deskana is starting to shake a little. I wish everyone luck, but, I think RFB may turn out to be as impossible as ever, and that maybe these RFB "highs" may not have been the best idea at this time, for some of the candidates. Anonymous Dissident  Talk ;15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true, opposes are coming in too early for AMIB's to have a chance. Andrevan's is possible, and honestly, if they all fail, then yeah we need to scrap and reform RFB since it doesn't work. Wizardman  15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No one on wikipedia can be said, the workings and standards of RFB today considered, to be a sailthrough on RFB. I cant think of anyone. There would be those <95%, but.. nup. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, partially retracted - yes, its only early times, but Ral315 is clean at present. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The danny question will doom all crat nominees
Sorry to be somber, but I don't see any of the crat noms being successful. With the contentiousness of Danny's RFA, any answer given to the question "how much discretion should crats have over close RFAs?" or "what did you think of Danny's RFA?" will doom the candidate. For instance, any crat candidate that advocates a purely numeric conception of consensus (e.g., the German RFA method) will get an almost certain oppose from me and several others, while there are a sizable number of people who believe that RFAs should be purely percentage driven, and thus will oppose if the candidate think that crats should actually attempt to evaluate consensus beyond just tallying numbers. It's impossible to please everyone.
 * I think the only way to get more crats is to reduce the requirement for a successful RFB from "complete unamity" to "consensus", as in the RFAs.Borisblue 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, at the minute there are three that will pass. Ral, Andrevan and me. Of course, we have to account for the fact that they tend to crash and burn, so we will just have to wait and see. I think the perception that we need crats has helped them not crash and burn so far, but it might even help them pass. --Deskana (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have three oppose votes for advocating a non-numeric conception of consensus. Way more than three people believe in the "German solution"- as you can observe from the furor following the Danny nom. You are an experienced user with deep familiarity with RFA, and I certainly hope you make it, I'm just not optimistic. Borisblue 18:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I for one believe in the German solution and though I am leaning towards opposing Deskana I haven't done so yet because I have found most of his answers reasonably thoughtful. If he comes straight out and says he thinks the bureaucrats did a good job evaluating consensus in the Danny case then, yes, I will certainly oppose. Haukur 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry, I never went into it expecting it to pass. I just hoped it did. --Deskana (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the most frustrating thing I found with my RfB was that there didn't seem to be consensus about what 'crats are supposed to do when closing RfAs. Very, very frustrating; definitely a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of situation. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Danny RfA question is about acceptance of a 'crats decision. I thought that the 'crats were too dismissive of the opposing votes and did not supply enough diffs to support their conclusions in the Danny RfA. However, I accept their decision and it appears the Wikipedia community seems to now accept it. Perhaps it is a question of just how much good will the nominee has built up in the community. For those RfB nominee's, the question each of us should ask ourselves is if the RfB nominee made a decision like that in the Danny RfA, would the community accept it? If not, that RfB nominee has not yet reached 'crat level. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my beef with that question would be "is another lead foundation member going to run for RfA here after resigning from their position"? Probably not, so maybe a better example is needed. Wizardman  22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a slight possibility for deskana and Ral isnt there? Last time I checked... Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only RFB's that are likely to be successful are probably Deskana, Ral and Andrevan's. A very troubling problem will arise if a question, such as "What would you do in Danny's RFA?". You disagree with the 'crat's decision, and you'll get shot down in flames by the supporters. You agree with them, and you get accused of denying consensus, and the opposes will form. Either way, a nearly successful rfb request will turn borderline. It's a double-edged sword. Though I have no idea about this, maybe a new policy might be useful here?-- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and, as Darkfalls and I were saying last night, even the rock solid ones (like Husond was) are starting to shatter. The 10 to 1 ratio proves inevitably and invariably cruel once again. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deskana - since when were you damned? Your RFB is looking among the best of the five. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm expecting it to fail now I've made a clear statement about Danny's RfA, to be honest. It is one of those damned either way situations, such as admitting whether you think RfA is consensus based or is a vote. --Deskana (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Some people might like your answer, and that gets you sups. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no guessing with RfBs. We'll just see how it goes. --Deskana (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What you have to remember that you have another six days to endure 10 to 1 opposes. Makes me shudder. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Leave it to the last day, then post your opinion:) Seriously, don't worry too much on it... That was the exact reason you got a support from me... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Who and/or when was the 90-95% support percentage for RfB's instituted? — Kurykh  23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know, but I think that 90-95% needs to be un-instituted myself. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 90-95% Come to think of it, I always thought it was around 85%. Does it actually say 90-95 or is it an assumption? -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, im fairly sure its around the 90% mark... Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice again we are seeing more RFAs hoping to slip under the radar. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's around 90%. It used to state that somewhere, I don't think it does anymore. --Deskana (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You folks might want to to check out Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 22. There's also a follow-up to that at Bureaucrat consensus poll, but I regret creating the latter as it was unhelpful and wrongheaded. The point is, it's not a clear-cut issue, and hasn't been for a long time. Andre (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the sound of things, it hasn't needed to be strictly defined, because no-one has gotten close enough in recent times... Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Close to what? — Kurykh  23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Passing. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the polls, the real discretionary range should be 80-85%... But then again, they are polls.... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 23:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We got a new no.6 - RyanGerbil10. He has self-asked the question about Danny, and answered. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What if no one passes this time?
We have to prepare ourselves for that. If none of those candidates end up passing, there is seriously something flawed with RfB. We may need to change our RfB process if that happens. I suggest we do something along the lines of what they do for WP:ARBCOM and the Board elections (currently going on now go vote!): approval voting. Ever quarter to a year, we set up Bureaucrat elections. All admins are welcome to post their name on a list before a deadline. After that deadline has ended, anyone is allowed to support the candidate (no opposes or neutrals). Whichever two or there get the most votes, become new 'crats. This method is very different from RfA in the aspect that we actually treat them as votes not !votes and that you can't oppose or go neutral. Please provide feedback (but hopefully, some of the current noms will pass and we won't have to worry about this).  Cbrown1023   talk   05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could be a good idea, but that would make 8 crats in one year. I dont know if thats necessary. And this idea is bound to bring out the "RFA/B is not a vote" brigade. Maybe we just need to lower our standards. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't really practically lower our standards, but we can make the passing percentage more practical. About Cbrown's idea, it's not bad, although we can make it twice a year instead, per the 8-'crats-a-year thing. — Kurykh  05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt mean lower each persons standards; lower voters standards. I mean make say an 80-85% passable so people can actually fill the position of crat. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. However, I was actually aiming for a more conservative change to 85% and above (give or take). Though still quite high, at least it's better than the near-unanimity that the status quo requires. — Kurykh  05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your proposal(Cbrown), will give more room for abuse though, and set out more competition. The first few votes will be pretty good, but in the end, it's going to be a popularity contest. Editors will just vote for whoever is winning, without a second thought.... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 05:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...much like in ArbCom elections. — Kurykh  05:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only solution to this is probably to make it like the board elections. Complete blindvotes... But that will probably cause too much inconvenience... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 05:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I say we cross this bridge when we come to it (next week).--Chaser - T 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The bridge has been here for quite a while actually, and its been waiting to be crossed for nearly as long. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but who wants to be the first goat? — Kurykh  05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Goat? You mean 'crat candidate right? -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh right! I get it... (haven't read that book since childhood) -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 06:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I havent ever read that book, and I am in my childhood. :) Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then, read it before it's too late! — Kurykh  06:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. 1 more edit. :D Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Suitable goat for 'cratship... Someone actively contributing to RFAs discussions, well respected, who is an admin and doesn't care about the humiliations of being a goat. -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 06:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fit the last criteria. Did I mention that I am a uhhhh... yeah, im actually a goat. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To complete the analogy, we need someone to play a troll. Hmm...--Chaser - T 06:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * add an "on wheels" at the end and it's a troll :) -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 06:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Trolls eat goats. But seriously: i think this could be an idea. Maybe we should post a new topic? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I oppose this. This is the same thing we do for stewards, isn't it? As of now, there is no point in doing this because we still don't know the outcome of the articles. And yes, 8 'crats (and more to come) is a little much. Why don't those users focus more on WP:UAA, which has 6 hour + backlog then trying to become a 'crat. <font color="#0A9DC2">~  <font color="#0DC4F2">Wi <font color="#3DD0F5">ki <font color="#6EDCF7">her <font color="#9EE8FA">mit  06:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More seriously, in the case all of the current RFBs fail (which I don't think will happen), we should analyze why they failed. If it is due to the candidates' particular weaknesses, then tough luck; but if there is a systemic issue affecting all of them, then at that point we definitely should have further discussion. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note: i doubt there is a weakness common to all the current crat candidates. Anonymous Dissident  undefined 06:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The rfb will probably fail depending on the different point of view of the opposers. Mention the Danny issue on an RFA, and it'll all blow out of proportion. As for the weaknesses, Anon's right. Many editors expect bureaucrats to be perfect, while others oppose because they disagree with an action. -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 06:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * DarkFalls is sopt on. Appeasing one group of editors will frustrate another. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What does UAA have to do with anything? That argument doesn't hold water. You could say the same for anything: there are literally thousands of things to do in Wikipedia, and some of them include the WP:CHU backlog, adding bot flags, dealing with usurpations, etc. There's probably thousands of fair-use images to investigate, so why don't editors who are editing the encyclopedia drop what they're doing and delete them? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to make an guideline on the criterias for bureaucrat promotion, like the featured article criteria. It will definitely help eliminate spurious opposes, but there are also many problems... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 06:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats a good idea, but it might seem too bureaucratic to some editors, and the "thats too bureaucratic, this is wikipedia not bureaucratopedia" company would come out. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably is too bureaucratic if you think about it.... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 06:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia as a whole seems to be under the impression that bureaucracy is fine as long as its not associated with users/the restrictions of users/user's rights. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC) - struck by me because of wrong phrasing.  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This policy says differently... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 06:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think you understand what i mean. Retracted, until I can phrase properly. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that some things in Wikipedia seem to be much more rigidly structured and steadfast than others, especially in regards to things user-related compared to the rest of the space. Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What if there was a voting threshold for RfBs, disallowing users to vote discuss who have not registered before X with Y amount of edits, like in the Board Elections? I wonder because, as a fairly new user, I can think of one RfA that I opposed that I really had no good reason to.  I didn't have a good grasp of what adminship was.  I wonder if discounting these votes in RfBs would change the outcome any?   The community seems to require some kind of Zen Buddhist like 'crat, so shouldn't there be a higher standard for the voting discussing populace? ;-)  daveh4h 15:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absurd opposes will, of course, be thrown out the window, but the thing with RfB is that most, if not all, people tend to have an idea what they are talking about, and if you look at the candidate from their point of view, it makes sense, no matter how you may disagree with it. — Kurykh  18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa!! Everybody take a deep breath and exhale slooooooowwly. "What if no one passes this time? We have to prepare ourselves for that." What are we talking about here? Bureaucrats don't decide whether anyone lives or dies. We don't have a backlog of requests to dispatch grain for starving children here. It look like we'll get a new bureaucrat out of this, maybe as many as three or four, depending on what happens over the next week. If we want to prepare ourselves for something, prepare ourselves for the possibility that, like throwing money at problems that need reform, throwing bureaucrats at late renames may not solve the problem in and of itself. What if no one passes? Well, change the process!! To the barricades!!! I just cleared the entire WP:CHU backlog in a couple of hours. There is no reason for this frenzy. A lot more damage is done to Wikipedia by hasty decisions than by a user having to wait for a rename. -- Cecropia 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats what we were discussing - changing the process. But I agree with you Cecropia - its not a big deal if no-one passes, it would just prove that the process is corrupt. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, an echo of the 'sixties. If the process doesn't produce the result I deem proper, it must be corrupt. -- Cecropia 07:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was born in '95. No idea what your on ;) But really, I used corrupted as in a synonym for say... dysfunctional. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I haven't even seen my bong for ages. :D I think "dysfunctional" is too inclusive a term, I think internal reform would do a lot more for bureaucratship than simply adding warm bodies in the hope that one of them or maybe even two (OMG, where's my nitro) might fully participate in the process. I think some means of review (say, have 'crats stand for affirmation after 90 days OTJ, then reaffirm annually) might do wonders for some cobweb cleansing. -- Cecropia 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think something has to be done. I think internal reform might be exactly what we are looking for. When you see the fact that a 'crat has not been promoted since early last year, despite many noms from mostly good candidates, it prompts one to wonder whether the current process might need some fine tuning or some alterations. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're going by 90%, recent voting turnout is making it look like no one will pass. If we're going by 85% there's still possibilities. In either case, the one thing I do like about the mass RfBs is that it's proving on a larger scale if the process is screwed up. Wizardman  20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Difficulty of passing RfB
Although I agree with the above concerns that it's become extremely difficult to pass RfB, I think this is unavoidable given the present nature of the position - it's bureaucratship itself that needs reforming, not the RfB process. It's rather like a US Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court justices - that is to say, it's incredibly tough, difficult questions are asked, and when it comes to the crucial "litmus tests" (abortion and affirmative action in the Senate hearings, Danny and vote vs. discussion in RfBs), candidates will inevitably draw opposition no matter what they say. However, consider the reasons why RfB is so tough to pass. It's because bureaucrats themselves exercise immense power, on which there are few, if any, effective checks. In the end, given that the group of bureaucrats is very small, they can make arbitrary decisions; if the 12 active bureaucrats agree on something, they can effectively do what they want, regardless of what the remaining 99.9% of the community thinks about it. So as it is, rather than trying to make RfB easier to pass, we should consider reforming the system entirely. Consider the following possibilities: I know both of these ideas will get shot down in flames by the "it's not a vote" lobby. But we also don't want bureaucrats to turn into the Jedi Council, with power to promote Jedi Masters (admins) at will. Waltontalk 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Introduce a bureaucrat bot, which would automatically promote RfA candidates receiving more than 75% support. Suffrage would have to be limited to registered users with 100 or more edits, to eliminate sockpuppetry. There would have to be "RfA clerks" to strike out votes obviously given in bad faith, or given by a user not entitled to vote.
 * 2) Alternatively, give bureaucratship automatically to every admin who serves for a year (without getting desysopped, blocked or sanctioned by ArbCom, obviously). This would increase the pool of bureaucrats, so we wouldn't just have an all-powerful council of 12.


 * I agree with substantial elements of your sentiment. My concern is still that as above. Wether RFA is a vote, a discussion masquerading as a vote, a vote masquerading as a discussion or just a discussion, automatic counting of opposes and supports is impossible. How would a bot count the following semantic comments? Moral Support, Cautious Support, Weak Support, Neutral to Oppose, Neutral with Moral Support, Weak Oppose, Protest Oppose et.al. If you are proposing that RFA Clerks sort this out to make them bot friendly, then by definition they would have to interpret the discussion that goes along with the !vote bit. And that then gives these fictious clerks 'crat powers in respect of RFA. If all the hotch potch of debates is ordered into a nice little yes/no/abstain selection it hardly then needs a bot - I've got a lovely calculator here that will do the job! Editors use these less than absolute comments because they know that they are read and will influence other people (the candidate, other editors and the closing 'crat). With reagrds to the second part of your proposal .... Hmmm sounds promising, but you can guarantee you'd need an "opt-out" clause.... Pedro | Chat  14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The type of support/oppose ought to be an irrelevance - regardless of motivation, editors have made a conscious decision to vote one way or another, so all Supports and Opposes should be counted equally. Anyone who doesn't want to make a clear judgment should cast a Neutral vote. The discretionary role of the RfA Clerks would only arise in extreme bad-faith cases, or opposes that were obviously cast as a joke (e.g. the "User has not edited articles about arthritis" oppose that I saw somewhere recently). Beyond that, they would not have power to make discretionary decisions about the value of an oppose vote (or, indeed, a support vote). Waltontalk 14:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't like your first point, but your second is very interesting. However, you are too vague?  What happens with inactive admins?  If you thought a rouge admin account was bad, don't even think about a rouge crat account.  Your proposal would require a desysoping policy, which is something the English Wikipedia has stated as being very against.  Cbrown1023    talk   14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily bad ideas but it would be much simpler to switch to an already proven system, such as the German one. Haukur 14:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Item #1 is easily bypassed by someone registering an account and making minute edits here and there. It'd be easy to gather 100+ edits and look like a legit editor (yes, this is still a potential issue in the existing system, but if arguments are weighed rather than numbers, it is less of an issue; I think automation would make it easier to abuse). Sorry, but as much as people talk about how much power the 'crats wield, I don't see why handing it over to a bot makes that better. People already spaz out at the idea of an admin bot. Do we really think a 'crat bot would do better? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I, for one, don't accept your premise that RfA or RfB are broken at all. Any RfA system is going to occasionally give the tools to bad editors and occasionally leave good editors feeling hurt and rejected.  Any RfB system needs to reject a lot more candidates than RfA because it'd be absurd for the project to have 1,000 bureaucrats.  The current systems are doing a fine job. --JayHenry 14:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would it be absurd for the project to have 1,000 bureaucrats? I know we don't "need" that many in a technical sense, but if we spread power between as many people as possible, it's less likely to be used arbitrarily or against the will of the community.
 * And I wasn't trying to say that RfA or RfB are necessarily broken. In fact, the opposite; I was saying that the state of RfB reflects the inherent flaws in the concept of bureaucrats, and that we'd be better off without the whole system. Informality and "discussion not vote" is fine for a small community, but with the massive size of the English Wikipedia, we need to move towards a system in which everyone's opinions are weighted equally, and admins etc. don't exercise power, but simply do what the community as a whole wants. We need to remember that the mass of regular editors, not admins or bureaucrats, are Wikipedia's most valuable assets, and should be given a say in who exercises power over them. This is an inherent moral question, concerning the legitimacy of power. Waltontalk 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the statement that "if we spread power between as many people as possible, it's less likely to be used arbitrarily or against the will of the community." By definition the tools are more likely to be used arbitrarily simply because there are more people who could do so.  Also, it's easy to unprotect a page or unblock a user; but sysop user rights are rarely removed, and bureaucrats don't have the ability to do it.  Would you want 1,000 stewards to keep the bureaucrats in check? --JayHenry 17:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that spreading bcrat power over a very large number of people isn't a solution. Finding enough editors with the requisite Clue would be virtually impossible. Chaz Beckett 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out above the practice at the Spanish Wikipedia is basically to make all admins bureaucrats. Apparently there haven't been problems though I guess theoretically a compromised bureaucrat account could do more damage than a compromised admin account. Haukur 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's only 113 admins there - there's nearly 1500 here. Considering the fact we've had several incidents of compromised accounts, I don't think it's worth doing that here, at least not every admin. Perhaps it should be limited to those who have been for more than a year and are active... or maybe there should be other limits. But making all 1500 bureaucrats is not practical.  Majorly  (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how much support is needed to pass. The cut-off for an RFA is around 75%, and up until Majorly changed it (right before his RFA) the RFB section read that 85% is needed (1).  Black Harry •  Go Red Sox  15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is required is clearer consensus than with RfA. Majorly is correct. If you must have a number (it's irrelevant), it's 90%, not 85%. --Durin 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't mean to imply its a vote but I just wanted a number as a reference point.  Black Harry  •  Go Red Sox  15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RfB flood - opinions, please!

 * (Random joke about the section heading) It's crat flooding! :D Shalom Hello 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

''This was posted on my talk page. After some writing and a lot of reflection, I've decided to post this here for everyone's consideration.'' -- Cecropia 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You ask excellent and generally acclaimed questions on Requests for bureaucratship, but don't actually give opinions. (Not to mention that most people say you are the currently most active Bureaucrat, and generally like your work.) Please don't stop the questions, but could you also boil your opinions down to some supports/opposes/neutrals, please? Basically, out of the 8 candidates, I found one I like, one I don't like, and the other six basically seem fine, so I'd generally support - except I don't want seven new ones all at once! If you could indicate which of the flood you would find "the best", and why, that would be a strong argument to me, and, I suspect, a number of other editors. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice words, but I can't really do what you suggest. If I expressed a support or oppose opinion, it might well make or break a particular RfB, either by people valuing my opinion or, conversely, by creating a sympathy vote for someone I disfavored. So I don't see a "Cecropian" party forming any time soon. :D
 * What I can do is ask questions which I feel help reveal candidates' positions in issues important to RfA. The candidates themselves then get an opportunity to clarify their positions and attitudes, and the community is quite capable, I believe, of taking these into account.
 * I would express a position if I felt that it was essential to do so, because of my strong belief that a particular person is especially fit, or more significantly, not ready to engage the community as a bureaucrat. The only person who I currently feel is definitely headed for a spot as bureau isn't even running. That would be User:WjBscribe. His clerking at WP:CHU has revealed a great deal of skill in the very area that everyone seems to agree needs more bureaucrat attention. He is concise, thorough, calm and respectful in dealing with the community. He is very willing to do the dog work that so many do not. But he isn't running, maybe because he hasn't been with the project long enough. But I remember when I was in the service that, when it came to promotion time, each candidate was allowed two waivers. The most common were Time in Service and Time in Grade. If the candidate was outstanding, especially if he or she was outstanding in the area to which they wwould be promoted then the requirements of TiS and TiG were greatly reduced.
 * If fact, I have a bit of a problem that stuffing so many nominations in at once may create a "feeding frenzy" that might accept or reject RfB candidates without enough careful consideration. So far it seems that most are taking the process seriously enough. But I notice that some of the candidates, and many of the participants, do not have a very firm concept of what bureaucrats really need to do. So I will make a personal policy suggestion: if you desire to be a bureaucrat, "clerk" at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU. I can even think of some clerking tasks that could be done at RfA. Then, present yourself to the community after some months or activity, and maybe we can get a real flavor of who should be bureaucrats. -- Cecropia 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a solid idea to me, I hope everyone considering RfB keeps this in mind. Andre (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I second the bit about too many simultaneous RfBs. Nobody is thinking of establishing a "quota", or telling anyone when or whether or not they should offer their names for consideration, obviously.  But having too many RfBs running at the same time, in my most humble opinion, can hurt the process and even the candidates themselves, especially those who listed their RfBs first and will be, literally, at the bottom of the list on the main RfA transclusion page.  They may get less input, since users may focus on some of the other RfBs running at the same time, especially if they present any kind of contentious factor that would polarize opinions to a greater extent.  And in terms of the process, with too many RfBs running, if may become increasingly more difficult for participants to make the considerations that are necessary when considering a potential Bureaucrat, which are not exactly the same as when considering a potential Administrator &mdash; which is an analysis that most users would be more used to making. That being said, it is also clear that what constitutes "too many" is rather subjective; it could be said to be 3 RfBs or 4, 5, 6 and so on.  So I would appeal to the sensitivity of future candidates: sometimes it is just better for the project if they would wait an extra week to submit their RfB, thus giving any running RfBs time to conclude and allowing the community a better chance of looking into each candidate.  Redux 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also annoyed by the huge number of simultaneous RfBs. It's fairly obvious that many of the supporters are taking little or no time at all to evaluate the candidates and are supporting because "We need more crats."  BillOnRollerblades would be promoted with this sort of reasoning and due diligence. --JayHenry 22:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is that it wont likely matter when it comes down to it. I cant see really ummm any of them being promoted. Sorry. I just cant any being able to endure a week of 10 to 1 opposes. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we could do with another right about now, there's an RfA waiting to be closed. Maybe the supporters think the candidates are good, and that's why they are supporting?  Majorly  (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so you all know I've offered to nominate Will but he's on a wikibreak and should be coming back soon. --<font color="#B22222"><font color="#B44444">C<font color="#B66666">h<font color="#B88888">r i s  g 09:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
I'd like to do a survey of opinion here on whether it is appropriate for a 'crat to also be editor-in-chief of signpost. It is relevant to Ral315's RFA. Frankly, I've always seen the Signpost as more of a "church bulletin" than an attempt at serious journalism (no offence to Signpost reporters intended), and 'cratship as a technical rather than political postion- but that's just me. Is there any reason I'm missing why a Ral315 the 'crat shouldn't be editor in chief but Ral315 the admin can? Borisblue 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as an issue at all, although of course, other users should write any articles about controversial RfAs (which I think Ral315 has already agreed to). Newyorkbrad 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad. Andre (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Newyorkbrad and Andre. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief, that wasn't a very interesting discussion :P Borisblue 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Borisblue. Oh, wait... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should respond to this since I raised the issue. I also want to be clear that, if not for this conflict, Ral would be, of these candidates, that which I would mostly strongly support for bureaucratship as he has the longest track record of neutrality.  As I see it, it depends on several issues:
 * on how you feel about consolidation of power
 * how seriously you take the signpost
 * how seriously you take conflict of interest.
 * If you wouldn't have a problem with the editor of the New York Times being a judge in the City of New York, then there's simply nothing I can say to convince you that this much smaller matter is also an issue. Similarly, if you're unconcerned with the super-elite that inevitably forms when a small number of editors hold most of the positions of power, there's probably nothing I can say to persuade you.
 * If you're content with the Signpost being a church bulletin, if you think that's in the best interests of the project, then I probably can't persuade you either. If Ral is ever involved in a significant controversy, the Signpost will not cover this with the same neutrality as if Cecropia is involved in a significant controversy.  It's just not possible for human beings to be uninfluenced by that.  Similarly, if Ral becomes a bureaucrat, the signpost will probably not cover any controversy involving any bureaucrats the same way it would today.
 * Finally, I've thought about your sysop question. On the one hand, I would prefer that the Signpost not be edited by a sysop, except for the fact that there is a very practical value in having the editor be a sysop.  Protecting pages, occasionally banning vandals, is probably sometimes necessary in the course of the job.  But do you really think the Signpost would have the same tone if edited by a non-sysop?  I think the tone would definitely be different.
 * I understand I probably care more about this sort of issue than most people. You can easily determine from my contribution history that I have more than a passing interest in journalism.  I hope that even if you disagree you can at least understand where I'm coming from and that I'm not insane ;) --JayHenry 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the same time, you do have to consider that Wikipedia's volunteer nature is different. Yes, in the normal world, you would want separation of powers, but here, the reward for a good job is three more things to do, per David Gerard's Law. There's a hell of a lot of people in NYC, but very rarely a user gains the community's confidence in Wikipedia, and when he or she does, there's no reason why to limit a user's pragmatic assets to one area of work. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize I am lonely on this one, but I firmly disagree with that. I believe that separation of powers is a principle that is good for societies of any size, even wikipedia (which really, isn't that small).  And I think there are definitely enough trustworthy editors to fill all the different roles we need. I've just read too many old ArbCom decisions that just wouldn't have happened with better separation of powers.  I'm not trying to make enemies so I'm not going to name names, but can you honestly say you've never seen problems coming out of a user who feels too entitled? --JayHenry 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm looking at it from the practical side here. But if a user can do two jobs properly, why do we need to shoot ourselves in the foot by forcing users to undergo mutually exclusive paths? I actually consider that users should know a bit of everything, as that gives them better understanding of what is going on behind the scenes, so I guess my view is diametrically opposed to yours. The entitlement can occur in users without the admin bit, even, so separation of powers doesn't really adress it. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I doubt it'd be terribly productive to go into the philosophy behind the separation of powers doctrine, whether it applies to small groups, and why I find it valid. (It's tangential to my oppose anyways.)  For me it truly is a smaller version of the exact reason I would not want John Roberts to be in the Senate, even though I would trust him to do that job more competently than almost every actual member of the Senate.  It's not that I view wikipedia in bureaucratic or governmental terms, but rather that I believe this is an important principle even at the level of a group of friends trying to accomplish something (which is really how I'd prefer to think of the wiki).  I'd be happy to have a little dialectic about it, but for the sake of the other people at WT:RFA perhaps we should take it to user talk? --JayHenry 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (unindent) I think being a 'crat and Signpost editor (Ral315) presents about the same conflict of interest as being a 'crat, arbitrator, checkuser, oversight, and featured article director (Raul654) - which is to say, no problem at all. Shalom Hello 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you suggesting is the conflict, Boris? I doubt that should Ral be promoted, the Signpost will suddenly be filled with articles on how great a bureaucrat Ral is, and even if that were to happen, I'm pretty sure someone would notice. --bainer (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a conflict. But then again, I have almost no familiarity with how signpost operates; I just browse through the headlines once in a while. I was under the impression that it served as nothing more significant than a bulletin board, rather than Wikipedia's New York Times I wanted to see if I was missing anything. Borisblue 03:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on Ral315's actual request, since the issue has come up about whether it's desirable for the Signpost editor to be an administrator, let me answer that strongly in the affirmative. It is necessary not only for the housekeeping reasons that have been suggested, but even more so because the nature of the reporting periodically requires the ability to look at deleted content. While you don't need to be an admin to write for the Signpost (and we welcome more reporters), having at least some admins on the team is essential. Being a bureaucrat doesn't bring any particular benefit to the effort in the same way, but neither is it completely obvious that the roles should be mutually exclusive.

As for JayHenry's comment about the tone, personally I try hard not to let my status affect what I write there, and I think there's enough disagreement among admins for it not to be clear that this is determinative. Simply, anybody with a long enough Wikipedia background to do the job well is likely to have had the opportunity to become an administrator. Meanwhile, I realize the "church bulletin" comment is meant in a friendly way, but we do aspire to live up to the standards of a reasonably detached, objective journalism. With no funding and a small group of volunteers, the time and resources limit us to something that may be closer to a small community or high school newspaper, for the sake of comparison. Still, we take the task seriously, welcome feedback to help improve, and even more we welcome actual work to help us produce a better Signpost. --Michael Snow 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-issue. The two don't conflict at all, and there's no "separation of powers" issue here; the Signpost is just a community-run "newspaper", not a position of authority interprets and enforces Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can imagine a few ways holding both positions might present a minor conflict of interest, but every time I try and type them out, here, I feel incredibly silly and remember that I actually trust Ral quite a bit. While I don't expect this would seriously impact his ability to run the Signpost, I have little doubt that the problem would be solved easily enough, if it did. If anything, I might actually venture it seems more likely that this would increase the stature of the Signpost, all things considered. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I strongly agree with JayHenry. We need to recognise that Wikipedia, like any large community, has a political power-structure, and that we need some kind of separation of powers. Ideally, this wouldn't be an issue - bureaucrats really shouldn't exercise discretionary powers, and should simply promote based on the community's vote. But as it is, bureaucrats do exercise massive power, and I think it's incredibly dangerous for power to accrue to individuals. The Essjay thing shows that someone can rise to a high level on Wikipedia without being remotely honest or trustworthy - not that I'm suggesting any of the current candidates are dishonest, but I have an issue with putting that much trust and concentration of power in the hands of any one individual. So I think that anyone who is both a bureaucrat and an arbitrator should resign from one or other of the positions, and that Ral should resign as editor of the Signpost if he wants to be a bureaucrat. Waltontalk 09:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Power structure -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I don't see much wrong with someone having authority if they are trustworthy, and unlikely to abuse or misuse them. With the whole Essjay thing, he resigned because of a controversial issue, not abuse of administrative, checkuser, bureaucrat, or oversight tools. I really don't see much wrong with Ral being able to edit the newspaper and being a 'crat, as long as the two don't cause a head-on collision. It'll be like saying that an editor can't edit on humans, because it'll be a conflict of interest. -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark Falls   talk 10:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with DarkFalls. I'm not so sure how editing humans is related, but I understand your point. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that "editor-in-chief" is a title of necessity, and not one I necessarily desire. Someone has to be editor, making minor editorial decisions (mostly just typo fixes or changing a headline), and taking the time to move pages to their rightful spots, updating pages and templates and distributing copies to talk pages and via e-mail. This title is at the will of the community, as would be my status as bureaucrat. If I were made a bureaucrat, I would have other users write all bureaucrat-related articles, and if for some reason I were to cross a line that showed a conflict of interest, and people I trust thought I crossed the line, then I'd resign my bureaucrat bit immediately. I understand the reasons for opposing, but I don't see the same issues, personally. Ral315 » 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Signpost is peer-edited by all readers, and if there was clear bias, readers would be raising a firestorm, would they not? — Kurykh  17:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)