Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 99

Proper thought and consideration needed
Hello everybody I just thought I needed to bring this to attention, and if this is just a repeat of what someone else has said in the past (which it probably is) then I'm sorry to have caused you pain, I know what it feels like... Anyway, I just wanted to enforce the point that these requests for adminship must be taken seriously. There are two cases on my request responses that clearly show people have not taken an in-depth look into my past/record.

Now I'm not just saying this because my RfA is crashing and burning in spectacular fashion, I know any hope has been obliterated by a foolish mistake I made yesterday, but I was only trying to be nice, and I'm sorry that I brought that user under the hammer too. :-(

But, one Wikipedian said I had very few edits to articles (Ozgod), which is completely false. Thankfully there were others as well as me who thought this comment as rather odd. And then another ((aeropagitica)) said I needed to do more of a variety of article editing such as adding references. Well, listen to me and look properly, because all of my edits to Fred West have been adding references, and all of my recent edits (i.e. edits in the past 2 months) to the Toyota F1 article were adding references. It was also me who added the references and the corresponding references section on the articles for Lancashire United, John Howett and Blackburn Drama Club.

Once again, this comment is NOT because my RfA has spectacularly bombed, but because I think the two people I have mentionned above have shown laziness and who've not made the effort to look into my past edits properly. This is unprofessional, and behaviour that shouldn't be allowed on something as important as this. And if hundreds have said this before me, I'm sorry for the repetition. With regards,  Lra drama 08:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its sad when this happens on rfa, but there not much you can do about it apart form telling the people that they're wrong. -- C h r i s   g 08:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Ozgod hasn't replied to any query directed to him, and isn't looking into it further.  Lra drama 08:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesnt really belong here - this post I mean. The part about consideration may be post-worthy, but specific details about your RFA doesnt belong here. Sorry. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait! Don't get rid of it! Which parts do you want removing?  Lra drama 09:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No no! I would never remove soemones posts. That would be rude. Nothing need even be removed. I'm just observing that this should probably be discussed at your RFA. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, Lradrama, and I am sorry you have taken to be so upset with my opposition to your RFA. Firstly, you transcluded it to the page without having fully completed it, which I had to do for you . Secondly, I compared your katewannabe's results with the last thousand edits you made to Wikipedia and saw a lot of RV'ing but not a lot of article contribution. I did not check your block log at the time, but based my comment about you block based on this, which I realize now was an accident. I will strike that comment from my opposition statement at your RFA, my apologies. However, snarky responses like this did raise an eyebrow with me. I felt with that situation you were a little more heated than should have been which makes me doubt your ability to handle the responsibilites of being an admin. Again, I am sorry for the block comment, which I will strike. --Ozgod 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I forgive you and I hope you forgive me for getting heated-up. :-) I was just surprised at the comment that hinted at only a few article contributions from me, after all the work I'd put in on the articles I've mentionned. That's all. Oh, and thanks for completing the request and mending what I messed up. Cheers,  Lra drama 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA Ideas
I had a few ideas for a more advanced RfA format, that allows it to be more structured, while reducing the number of votes for useless things, or voting a certain way because another user they know did. See User:TheFearow/RfA for a draft RfA.

Any comments? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. While it seems this a much more structured version, there will be many comments on what is good and bad about this idea. I think that if this becomes standard, you need to make the comments in referral to yourself neutral, in referral to your contributions, and your views. Your POV is not important here. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. It's a nice thought, but it's overly bureaucratic. RfAs having different phases lasting different amounts of times is unnecessary, as it appears to be a solution looking for a problem. --Deskana (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to partially agree, the process would appear to take longer than needed. If you fine tuned it a bit, it might be an idea though :) -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I cant see this getting consensus, it has taken and it still is under discussion whether or not the tally should be removed from RfA's; completely changing the format would take an enormous amount of time, so I'm not to keen anyway. Rlest 11:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan in saying this, but it really sounds like instruction creep. And 2 days is way too short for editors who don't pop by RfA once a day. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhat creepy. There is no reason why this can't work, esp. if stages 2 and 4 are increased to four days. A good proposal but one which would need fine tuning. GDonato (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the POV about me - that's some random stuff I put in as an example. Users would not be allowed to place pros/cons on their own RfA's. Also, it's a basic proposal, so I am going to be changing around, so any suggestions are welcome. I am going to extend 2&4 to 4 days, as I know some are not online a lot, but I don't want to make the whole process take weeks. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in support of a discussion stage, but not the other stuff. --Iamunknown 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem; Bureaucrats exercising promotions based on own criteria, rather than community
From Bureaucrats; bureaucrats "are bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" (emphasis mine).

Recently, a debate arose regarding the closing of Requests_for_bureaucratship/Andrevan3. This RfB was closed by User:Raul654. In closing this, statements by Raul and subsequent discussion has revealed that Raul used his own metrics to grant less weight to concerns raised by more than half of the opposition to the promotion. This opposition was based on the perception that the candidate lacked appropriate experience to exercise the responsibilities of bureaucrat. Quoting Raul, "I gave them less weight, yes, because the stated reasons are inconsequential"

Discussion regarding this event is happening at Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard, if you'd like to follow along.

I am raising this issue here because;
 * 1) I'd like see if the community shares the concerns that I have, that bureaucrats using their own metrics for promotion is not in concert with the quote I started this section with.
 * 2) If the community shares these concerns, that all bureaucrats are clearly informed that this is not acceptable behavior.

I'd like to make it clear that I am not calling for the Andrevan RfB result to be undone. This really has little to do with that, and directly only to do with Raul's behavior with regards to the closure of this RfB. This isn't about discounting of "votes" or arbitrary percentages for promotion. The issue here is that a bureaucrat acted independently of community will and applied their own metrics for the importance of a given reason for opposition held by more than half of opposers.

Bureaucrats are expected to evaluate consensus, not make it. 7 people voiced concern (directly or indirectly) regarding Andrevan's experience. 9 voiced lack of concern (directly or indirectly) based on experience. This is hardly consensus that such concerns are inconsequential. It is my opinion that Raul acted entirely improperly, and all bureaucrats should be strongly discouraged from acting in this manner in the future. --Durin 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a real problem. I don't have any issues with Andrevan but Raul654 clearly went beyond the Bureaucrats scope. Within reasonable bounds, they are not to judge reasons "inconsequential" That's not their job. RxS 14:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the more I think about this the less I think of it. To a great degree, it shouldn't matter what bureaucrat closes an RFX, but with this type of close we'll end up with differing results based on who is the closer. We don't want people hoping to get a good judge and trying to avoid a hanging judge so to speak. RxS 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't have a problem with it. From Bureaucrats: "Determine whether there is a consensus that the person should be sysopped using the traditional rules of thumb and your best judgement." (emphasis mine)  --Kbdank71 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think bureaucrat discretion is fine, and this is a typical result of bureaucrat discretion. Pure voting (which I believe would also produce good results) would eliminate the "problem" that bureaucrat discretion isn't always fair to everyone. You can't have both the advantages of voting and non-voting. Kusma (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't about having votes discounted. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the evaluation of consensus. The community did NOT voice consensus that the lack of experience was something worth ignoring. Raul decided it was irrelevant anyways. THAT is inappropriate behavior. If we condone this sort of behavior, we might as well declare bureaucrats to be a review board, and grant adminship as liberally as we grant username changes. This might actually be ok, but it's not the system we currently have. Raul acted entirely outside the bounds of what bureaucrats are empowered to do. If I were to close a hundred AfDs as no-consensus, or keep, when plenty of opposition existed for X reason and I discounted X because of my own metrics, I'd be dragged before RfC, ArbCom, maybe even blocked for it. Closures are expected to be done under the auspices of community consensus. Bureaucrats acting outside of this are entirely out of line. --Durin 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, Durin favors discretion, as long as the bureaucrats exercise it in exactly the way he would. Raul654 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Raul. This is attempting to win the argument by distorting and discrediting Durin's argument.  This is inappropriate rhetorical style.  Durin's argument does have some substance.  I happen to disagree with it.  Please read my analysis below.
 * --Richard 14:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I favor discretion in evaluating consensus in concert with the community will, not your own. You acted by applying your own metrics to whether the opposition based on experience was valid, not the community's metrics. You were out of line. --Durin 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you just missed my comment above, so here it is again: From Bureaucrats: "Determine whether there is a consensus that the person should be sysopped using the traditional rules of thumb and your best judgement." How is one supposed to use their best judgment, exactly, without using their own metrics?  --Kbdank71 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The concept of having the community decide which objections are "valid" and which are not was tried and rejected in the RfA-as-RfC experiments. Can we please just choose smart bureaucrats (like we usually do) and then accept their judgment on what is and what is not valid? Kusma (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As it should have been...whatever else happens, an objection raised in a sincere and good faith manner should never be deemed "inconsequential" by a closer. RxS 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we're back at voting, which many people are afraid of for some reason. (And of course discounting votes per their rationales or their sincerity always carries an element of mind-reading). Kusma (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or at least back to judging community consensus on a these types of issues. As opposed to a bureaucrat sitting in judgement deciding whose arguements make the most sense to them. I think there's a middle ground between that and strict vote counting. It's hard to define and breaks down if you examine it too closely but it seems to work ok. That's why breaking out of that model and having bureaucrat dismiss editors whose rationales they don't agree with is such a bad idea. RxS 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it.

Disclaimer: I did not participate in the Andrevan RFB at all. I only learned of this by reading the above text and then reading the Andrevan RFB and the related discussion on WP:BN. What follows is my analysis based on what I read.

Andrevan's RFB was 78/12/2 (86.7% in favor). This falls in the discretionary range. Raul654 used his discretion but that discretion involved ignoring oppose votes on the basis of personal judgment rather than community consensus. (Durin's words)

Presumably Durin would have been OK with Raul654 ignoring the "inactivity" votes if the "mini-consensus" on this issue had been 25 who felt that inactivity was inconsequential and 7 who felt that it was important. What Durin is effectively asking for is that b'crats find an issue which has enough "oppose" votes that, if discounted, would shove the candidate over the "vote count" threshold. However, in order to qualify as a "tie-breaker", the issue must have enough associated support votes to make it clear that it is the community consensus that the issue should be deemed inconsequential.

If I have understood this correctly, my opinion is that Durin is right in principle (that b'crats should assess community consensus) but wrong to assert that how this should be executed in practice. I think Durin was able to take an isolated micro-dispute of opinion and prove it "against community consensus" by analyzing a 9/7 "mini-vote" that was not declared. In other words, RFB is not like RFARB where arbitrators vote on every finding, principle and action. No one declared a vote on inactivity and thus we don't really know what the community consensus was on this issue. Look at it this way: 92 people voted; only 16 of those expressed any opinion about "inactivity". That suggests an overwhelming consensus that "inactivity" wasn't important enough for 76 people to comment on.

More importantly, I think that b'crats should respect the results of community consensus outside the "discretionary range". Within the discretionary range, we should give the b'crats broad latitude and not ask for their reasoning as it leads to these kinds of quibbles over "mini-consensus" determinations. If the job of the b'crat is to determine consensus in this way, I wouldn't want the job. It's too difficult.

I would suggest that we only demand justification from a b'crat if he is making a decision outside the discretionary range. Inside the range, just let the b'crat decide. Otherwise, we will have endless discussions over whether the reason given was "with consensus or without".

--Richard 14:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I just realized something. Isn't Durin the one who proposed the RFARB style format for RFA? Using that style, this kind of "mini-consensus" voting is perfectly natural. If I have put 2 and 2 together correctly, the problem is that Durin is expecting b'crats to think in RFARB style when analyzing community consensus even though that consensus was not formed using the RFARB style. I continue to think that this is a bad idea. Durin, if you want RFB's to use RFARB-style consensus formation, then propose it as you did with RFA. However, I think the mixture of the current RFA/RFB format with RFARB-style conesnsus determination is seriously broken as it requires a lot of work on the part of the b'crat without the help of the RFARB format to help determine the "mini-consensus" on each issue. --Richard 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrevan is an excellent guy who has been around for yonks (and I mean, absolutely ages). Raul654's reasoning on this close seems to be have been very good.  The reasoning in the objections was, in my opinion, of remarkably poor quality.  What does "You've been utterly absent from WT:RFA since November of 2005 up until a couple of days ago" have to do with an applicant's fitness for the role of bureaucrat?  Sounds like a sign of commonsense to me!  How does "You need to be much more active than you are at the moment" make any sense when addressing a candidate who, month after month, has edited articles continuously since May, 2004?  --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he is an excellent guy. But it's also perfectly acceptable to question someones ability to manage a process when they haven't been active in nearly 2 years. I'm not making that argument myself but it's a perfectly reasonable one for someone to make. RxS 15:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked at Andrevan's editing history? To hold that he "has not been active in nearly two years" would require one to ignore over 5,000 edits!  Of course it's a stupid argument, utterly worthless. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear but maybe not, he hasn't been active in WT:RFA in neary 2 years. Which makes it perfectly reasonable to question his ability to manage the RFA process. RxS 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh this gets even sillier. A fellow has avoided editing the talk page of the RFA process in two years.  How is this supposed to say anything about his competence in judging community consensus?  As I remarked above, it's probably a sign of a fellow with more commonsense than most of us. --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is getting sillier but not, I suspect, in the way you think. What you call "editing" Talk:RFA, others would rightly call participating in the RFA process. Different parts of Wikipedia have different nuances and people need to be familiar with them before taking action in them, we may not want someone who doesn't take part in the deletion process closing AFD pages for example. Now, you may not agree with that but it's far from silly for someone else to think that someone should be familiar with a process before attempting to manage it. But it may not matter because once you start throwing around terms like silly, blitheringly (??) and stupid/worthless all meaningful debate ends you just turn into a rhetorical bully. RxS 20:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul did not act entirely alone in that I signed off on the issue of Andrevan's promotion; that is, I did not feel sufficient consensus to promote myself, but felt that it was within the range that I would support either decision, and I said so. Having said that, I was bothered by much of the support and oppose discussion on most all of the recent RfBs. Bureaucrats are the ones who have to make careful decisions and take the heat when the community has problems with the running of RfA. Bureaucrats also need to have a good grasp of what is involved in the job and have a responsibility to the other functionaries and to the process to present a coherent basis on which decisions (both in general and in individual cases) are based. In my estimation, too many of the participants supported or opposed on personal sentiments (e.g., liking the nominee, shrugging off possible lack of qualification, inflexible personal standards of whether RfA is a "vote" or something else). Yes, active bureaucrats need always to keep their responsibilities in mind, but some in the community could do a much better job themselves in considering not just their opinions, but their motivations in forming those opinions, even more so in the case of RfBs. -- Cecropia 15:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (not responding to Cecropria, but in general) Apparently I've not been clear, despite my efforts. I'll try, once more. This is:
 * 1) Not about voting.
 * 2) Not about percentages.
 * 3) Not about discretionary ranges for promotion.
 * 4) Not about some proposed RfC style format RfA being rejected by the community.
 * 5) Not about Andrevan and whether he's a great guy or not.
 * 6) Not about whether the promotion was valid or not.
 * 7) Not a hissy fit by me because Andrevan was promoted despite my opposition (I don't care)
 * 8) Not about my own metrics or whether someone should have been promoted.
 * 9) Not a witch hunt for Raul's head.
 * 10) Not a request for Raul to step down.
 * To define this as tightly as possible, this issue is entirely, solely, and only about whether consensus existed that experience was a non-factor. You can discount that if you like, that RfC format was rejected, but it is not about that and you are falsely concluding my stance in doing so.
 * Bureaucrats are expected to evaluate community consensus, not apply their own metrics. Raul applied his own metrics. There's no questioning that.
 * If an RfB or RfA sock/meatpuppets should be eliminated, IPs should be essentially ignored, blatantly false reasons for opposition/support should be ignored ("Was blocked..." but was never blocked for example) and what remains needs to be evaluated carefully in close cases. If a bureaucrat were to have promoted Andrevan as consensus to promote, while not granting less weight to more than half of the opposition, I would not have had a problem with that. But that's not what happened here. Raul explicitly granted less weight to the opposition based on experience. You can personally think that lack of experience was a non-issue in this RfB. I'm perfectly fine with that. We all have our opinions. But to apply those personal metrics is absolutely wrong.
 * Let's take a counter interpretation of that RfB; what if the closing bureaucrat had said "reasons to not oppose for lack of experience have no merit" and not done the promotion. Is that valid too? No. Neither take is valid. The reasons for opposition were legitimate, as were the reasons for support. You don't discount these opinions, as Raul did, based on their own metrics of what is valid and not valid. Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the community will, not their own. --Durin 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin casts the debate over "inactivity at RFA" as a 9 in favor of ignoring "inactivity at RFA" vs. 7 opposed to ignoring "inactivity at RFA" and claims that Raul654 either ignored consensus or saw a consensus where no clear consensus existed.
 * Try looking at it this way... 7.8% (7/90) of all who expressed an opinion mentioned "inactivity at RFA" as a reason to oppose. That means 92.2% of all who expressed an opinion didn't think "inactivity" was a reason to oppose i.e. they either supported (78/90) or opposed for some other reason (5/90).  So where is this "lack of consensus" to ignore "inactivity at RFA"?
 * Going back to Durin's "hypothetical". What if Raul654 had said "Rejecting RFB because lack of activity at RFA is a valid concern"?  Would that have been an appropriate assessment of community consensus?  Letting the opinions of 7 editors override those of 83 others?  or 78 others, depending on how you count it.  So which way is the preferable way to close this RFB?  By rejecting the opinions of the 7 or of the 78+ editors who didn't seem to care about this criterion?
 * Durin, since you think this is a big deal, tell us how you would have closed the RFB.


 * AFAICT, no one ever cast any part of this !vote as being about whether or not "inactivity at RFA" was a legitimate criterion for evaluating b'crat candidates. The RFB !vote is about the qualifications of the candidate and should NOT include separate mini side-votes about what legitimate criteria are for RFB.  Hold those discussions here on this Talk Page and outside the actual RFBs.
 * --Richard 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As a general point, if by personal metrics you mean throwing out opinions simply because they don't match personal sentiments, I fully agree with you; but insofar as determining community consensus is concerned, bureaucrats must give consideration in discretionary cases both to well-reasoned expressions of participants' views and thier effect on building consensus and to those that say (in effect) "Support, yo!" or "Oppose, no good!" and their impact on the discussion. -- Cecropia 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And in cases where community will is unclear, they will have to make a decision. They can't base this decision on community will because community will does not say what to do. So what can they do but use their own judgment? Kusma (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Durin, I think the problem here is in your framing, to wit: this issue is entirely, solely, and only about whether consensus existed that experience was a non-factor.


 * I'd say that the weighing of the doubts about Andrevan's relevant experience lay with the people making the decision: the bureaucrats.  To put it as you have framed it would be to turn Wikipedia into a democracy, where such decisions were made solely by votes and the bureaucrats were mere vote tellers. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a case of tl;dr Tony? Did you not read where I said this is not about voting? --Durin 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea what "tl;dr" means. Could you try using English? On your substantive point, I agree that you say it isn't about voting.  Yet when the bureaucrats exercise their personal judgement you complain.  What else are they to do if they're not mere vote counters? --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what he's saying at all. Durin does buy into the whole wise-bureaucrats-determine-consensus claptrap as should be evident to you from reading the above. What he's saying is that in this case the wise-bureaucrat part seems to have forgotten the determine-consensus part. Haukur 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, Durin favors discretion, as long as the bureaucrats exercise it in exactly the way he would. --Kbdank71 16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. He doesn't favor discretion based on the bureaucrat's own metrics at all. Haukur 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The bureaucrat is either a vote counter alone, or he applies some personal judgement. We cannot ask him to determine consensus by exercising his judgement, and simultaneously castigate him for doing so. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a false dilemma. Durin feels the bureaucrat should apply his personal judgment to evaluating consensus not to evaluating the candidate. Haukur 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly that's what Durin think's he's arguing. However he framed it as follows: this issue is entirely, solely, and only about whether consensus existed that experience was a non-factor''.
 * In other words, his objection as stated is to the fact that the bureaucrats chose to evaluate, and apply variable weights to, the arguments. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oookay... So, I'd say that a perceived lack of recent experience in the rfa process is a valid criteria, when taken at face value. However... When it comes down to just over 86% in favour, and that perceived lack of experience is the biggest opposition factor... um... yes. I'd say it can be effectively ignored. (Why the heck don't the other 86% have that same concern?) Overall, he made a judgement call. And, frankly, I don't think it was all that big of a leap either. When you have that much support, the only reason you should turn it down is if the 'opposition' is turning up some maaajor problems and the 'support' is spewing absolute drivel. That is, it would have taken some extreme personal metrics to turn it down! My opinion? Good call. Bladestorm 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. This RFB fell within the discretionary range.  By definition, community consensus was unclear, so asking a bureaucrat to determine it definitively is impossible.  All that he or she can do is use his or her own judgment to determine the quality of the arguments on both sides.  That is what Raul did, and I think it was fine.--Danaman5 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that bureaucrats should summarily determine that an argument is low-quality (barring the exception of, "Oppose based on block record", when the candidate has no blocks, or some other demonstratively false argument). In terms of the Andrevan RfB, I don't think Raul should have discounted the experience-related opposition.  That said, I think that the reasons people support and oppose need to be more detailed, so that the bureaucrat can more accurately judge consensus.  There were several editors (under 10, correct?) who opposed based upon Andrevan's lack of experience.  If significantly more—say 30—said that they thought experience was a non-factor and it did not influence or dissuade their opinion to vote, then it is safe so say that the community is discounting those opinions.  There is a difference between the community's discretion and the bureaucrat's discretion.  I think that the bureaucrat should read through the discussion, note the community's opinions of the candidate (opposing and supporting), and the community's opinions of others' opinions.  --Iamunknown 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the situation was even more blitheringly stupid than you have imagined. It wasn't so much that 10 editors opposed based on lack of experience, but that that they falsely judged that one of our most experienced Wikipedians was lacking in experience, based merely on a cursory examination of his recent editing history in a particular discussion page.  Did I say "blitheringly stupid"?  That was an understatement, of course. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are certainly welcome to your opinions regarding the rationale for oppose based on lack of experience. You are not welcome to insult people who use such a criterion. Meta discussion about whether the reason was valid or not is entirely unhelpful to evaluation of what Raul did. More than half of the opposition based their reason for opposition at least in part based on inexperience. Casting insults about does nothing to aid the discussion. If you can't contribute without insulting those you are in disagreement with, please excuse yourself from the conversation until you can contribute positively. Thank you. --Durin 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If criticising a very stupid rationale causes those who subscribe to it feel insulted, so be it. I'm coming back to you again on this: the very existence of significant number of people who can seriously describe a contributor of some four years standing with over 11,000 edits, 5,000 of them in the past two years, as inexperienced necessitates that we rely on bureaucrats to exercise their commonsense and ignore such idiotic reasoning.


 * This is my positive contribution, and I challenge you to better it: that a small number of adherents to a very stupid line of reasoning must never overweigh well reasoned arguments. This is why we task bureaucrats with determining consensus, and not tallying votes. --Tony Sidaway 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are incapable of countering an argument without using terms to describe it as "idiotic" and "blitheringly stupid" I dare say your counter argument is weak at best. Simply because you state something is idiocy does not make it so. If you can't contribute without inducing such rhetoric, try not contributing until you can. I fail to see reason to discuss the issue with someone who not only is engaging in such rhetoric but feels it is justified. --Durin 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Strange, this is the first time I've completely agreed with Durin on an RfX-related matter (we've generally been at loggerheads over the vote vs. discussion thing). This is nothing to do with the fact that I, too, opposed Andrevan's candidacy. The fact is that bureaucrats should not make judgments and "weigh up the strength of arguments" in closing RfAs and RfBs - that just makes them wiki-barons exercising wiki-political power. Bureaucrats, like admins, are simple functionaries whose job is to determine community consensus, and act accordingly. Sometimes, admittedly, that consensus can't be determined by enumeration of votes, hence why we have the discretionary range. But opinions given in good faith by established contributors should not be given less weight just because the closing bureaucrat strongly disagrees with them - that's a wikithoritarian thing to do. WaltonOne 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "whose job is to determine community consensus". How?  Would it have been better if Raul came back and said "Tails, promote"?  B'cats are supposed to use their judgment.  --Kbdank71 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of dating myself, this is a question that was settled a very long time ago. The answer is that yes, bureaucrats are supposed to exercise their judgement and may give some support or opposition votes less weight. Raul654 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Settled" back in 2004, when half of the current active users (including myself) weren't even around? Don't you think it's time to revisit it? Consensus can change, and I don't believe there's consensus on that point at present. WaltonOne 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got to go with Walton here. Settled a long time ago directly contradicts "consensus can change".  I think anyone who follows WT:RFA would recognize that there presently is no consensus about how much discretion the 'crats should have.  There is one faction that believes the 'crats should have no discretion and just go by the numbers.  There is another faction that advocates eliminating any tools that makes it easier to know how many people feel one way or another, effectively massively increasing the 'crat discretion.    Neither side has enough agreement to move the system.  And the vast majority of active editors, and of active admins, don't appear here.  Calling it settled is incorrect.  We don't have a consensus to change, but we also don't have a current consensus for the current standards.  GRBerry 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well certainly if nobody has a consensus to change something, the status quo remains.... Andre (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Our current version of Bureaucrats instructs bureaucrats to "Determine whether there is a consensus that the person should be sysopped using the traditional rules of thumb and your best judgement." If you want that changed, get consensus for it. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, isn't weighing arguments exactly what we've asked the bcrats to do? Isn't that the whole point of the "RfA is not a vote" mantra? – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The point here is that Raul used his own metric to weigh the arguments, not that of the community. He decided the opposition was irrelevant on his own grounds, not that of the community. That is the problem. There was a pretty even split of people opposing for inexperience and supporting despite inexperience. Raul could have just as well decided the reasons to support despite lack of inexperience were irrelevant. Basically, he ignored what the community said and decided on his own. Perhaps Bureaucrats should be turned into a review board, and be done with the charade of consensus development on RfAs and RfBs. It's obvious Raul fully intends to go on ignoring it anyways. --Durin 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The current discussion format isn't suited to answering questions like, "Are commenting users specifically concerned about the candidates recent experience or lack thereof in Foo process?" -- we can see that several users mentioned it, but there's no way to determine who considered it or didn't. You appear to be assuming that every user who didn't mention any given issues never took those issues into consideration -- how can we establish this, one way or the other, in the current format? – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't...but for Raul to arbitrarily declare that opposition for lack of experience should be given less weight was flatly wrong. Why did he not decide that support despite lack of experience should be discounted? It's not reasonable for him to have done this, and ignores community will. --Durin 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin, what, in your opinion, was the community will? Would you have been happier if Raul had said "There were 12 oppose votes.  I'm giving weight to the 7 that opposed for inactivity at RFA and discounting the 5 who opposed for other reasons?"
 * You have not given us a procedure by which the b'crat can close a "discretionary" RFA or RFB without discounting some oppose votes. Is it incumbent for the b'crat to discount only those oppose votes which have been soundly defeated (e.g. by a 2:1 margin or greater)?  If the b'crat can't find any such votes, is he then required to reject the RFA or RFB?
 * --Richard 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin, if I were to tell you to use your best judgment, what would you take that to mean? --Kbdank71 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would take that to mean that I would consider all comments made in the RfB, and not apply my own metrics as to whether a certain group of X comments were worthless. It is not up to me, if I were a bureaucrat, to determine what are and are not valid criteria for promotion. Raul applied his own criteria. If it is up to bureaucrats to determine what are valid criteria, then we can dispense with RfA and RfB and turn the bureaucrats into a review board and allow them to generate criteria for admin/bureaucrat. I should hope you don't feel that "judgment" reads "apply own criteria about what is valid and not valid" --Durin 20:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Will you grant that the b'crat MUST discount some votes, either "oppose" or "support", in order to move the request to a "grant" or "deny" state? How should the b'crat determine which votes to discount? --Richard 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious how you've reached the conclusion he "ignored the community will," when you've just openly conceded we don't know, and can't know, what it is in a manner this precise? – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) how can we establish this, one way or the other, in the current format - To a some extent, we cannot, unless those who would support a candidate would offer more in their rationale than merely "Support". If they commented on what factors they considered, how much each factor swayed them from "support" or "oppose" and then back, thent the bureaucrat could determine whether other editors considered such things as inexperience yet found them a non-issue. --Iamunknown 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if this is something we want to avoid in the future, we'll have to change the way these discussions are run. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All I'm asking is that bureaucrats stop using their own metrics for determining what criteria are valid or not. If something is blatantly false, that's one thing. People opposing for inexperience on RfA is patently not false and should not have been discounted, yet that is what happened here. --Durin 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Then whose metrics should the b'crat use?  The community's?  On what basis?  That every issue for which there is no "consensus" to ignore, all the "oppose" votes must be counted?  What decision procedure are you advocating that b'crats use in closing RFAs and RFBs? --Richard 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin, it seems like every time someone tries to get to the root of the problem you're complaining about, you bring the discussion back up to the surface. Instead of repeating "all you're asking" and insisting on very narrow parameters for this discussion, why don't you respond to some of the direct questions raised by participants here? Andre (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've asked you several direct questions that I think are legitimate and meant to get to the heart of the issue.  Please answer them. --Richard 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrevan, that is what Durin is doing, as in his response to Kbdank71 above. And I don't see what the problem with a narrow parameter of discussion is.  People keep conflating the issues at hand with a wide variety of allegations, so it apparently is necessary.  --Iamunknown 20:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his answer isn't very helpful. "Durin, if I were to tell you to use your best judgment, what would you take that to mean?" seems like a request for something very specific. Durin's answer is lacking, consisting of only one direct answer to the question (bolded below) and a lot of discussion about what he does NOT want, or what Raul did wrong:
 * I would take that to mean that I would consider all comments made in the RfB, and not apply my own metrics as to whether a certain group of X comments were worthless. It is not up to me, if I were a bureaucrat, to determine what are and are not valid criteria for promotion. Raul applied his own criteria. If it is up to bureaucrats to determine what are valid criteria, then we can dispense with RfA and RfB and turn the bureaucrats into a review board and allow them to generate criteria for admin/bureaucrat. I should hope you don't feel that "judgment" reads "apply own criteria about what is valid and not valid"
 * His response was basically: "Judgment means considering all comments," which is really no better than, "Judgment is judgment." The question was about how he would consider, not a definition of what judgment is. Andre (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Here's an insight. Try this one on for size. I think we would all have objected if Raul had "used his own metrics" to discount "inactivity at RFA" oppose votes and thus push Andrevan's RFB from below the discretionary range into the "grant" range. That is, imagine if the vote had been 70 to 20 with 15 oppose votes on the basis of "inactivity at RFA". There would have been loud screaming if Raul had summarily dismissed those 15 oppose votes and said "Therefore, discounting the inconsequential inactivity at RFA votes, Andrevan has community consensus for promotion to b'crat".

The reason that so many of us are not worked up about this RFB is precisely because Andrevan's RFB was in the discretionary range and the discretionary range is more or less defined as that range where the consensus could be read either way (for promotion or for denial) and we delegate the final decision to the b'crats.

The issue then is not whether Raul discounted votes but whether he did so in an appropriate situation (i.e. inside the discretionary range).

--Richard 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there's something to that, and I wonder if this is really a misunderstanding about semantics. Andre (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, if the entire discussion is about "whether consensus existed that experience was a non-factor," then how about this: there was no consensus it was a non-factor. There was no consensus that it was a factor either. The community was more or less evenly split about it being a factor or not. The entire nomination was in the bureaucratic discretion range, so a bureaucrat has to make the decision as to what to do either way. So, outside of personal value judgments, what can a bureaucrat do? Pray to the Oracle of Delphi? There is not a list of "accepted guidelines" about what is too much or too little experience on WT:RFA, and the community is sending mixed signals. So, for the bureaucrat to follow the wishes of the community, the community must know what its wishes are. That wasn't the case in this RFB, so it was subject to personal value judgments that all humans have and that kick in as the default where everything else fails. Did Raul lose points for unsatisfactory oratory? Perhaps. But again, based on the facts in this case, I don't know that his decision was all that awful. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, now if we can only get Durin to agree to this. Durin is not asking for the decision to be changed.  He just is stuck on the principle that b'crats don't get to decide which criteria are valid and which are not.  On this point, he's right.  It's far better for a closing b'crat to say "in this RFA or RFB, it appears that the consensus is to promote" without saying anything about the oppose reasons that he/she is discounting to make that decision.  Doing so just opens the door to Monday morning quarterbacking.  Rationales are only needed in extraordinary situations like the Carnildo 2 RFA when the opposition fully expected that the RFA would be rejected.  Those rationales will get close scrutiny and heated debate but that comes with the territory.
 * --Richard 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Models for thinking about how we close RFA/RFB
Of course, no analogy is perfect but here are some things worth thinking about.

In the United States, the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and the laws. Their decision is final but the decision is backed up by opinions which explain the rationale for their decision. You can question and criticize their rationale but you can't change their decision. Even the minority opinion can dissent from and criticize the majority opinion (and it usually does).

Also, in the United States, the Vice President is the president of the Senate. He only votes in case of a tie. His vote is the tiebreaker. He does not have to offer a rationale for his vote and his vote is binding and cannot be appealed.

We have asked the b'crats to offer a rationale in difficult cases. I think they have agreed to do so. This is closer to the analogy of the Supreme Court. We could alternatively choose the model of the Vice President where in the b'crat is given wide latitude to vote yea or nay on a candidate in the discretionary range without questioning the "rightness" of the b'crat's decision and whether it reflects community consensus (which I would argue is a misguided objective in these discretionary cases).

I personally think we should move close to the model of the Vice President because the other approach opens up to these endless debates about whether 9-7 is a sufficient margin to determine community consensus about whether "inactivity at RFA" is a sufficient reason to oppose an RFB.

--Richard 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The case of a tie generally indicates that there is simply no consensus for the proposed change. So there is no consensus, and that is that.  I would not approve the bureaucrat being a "tie-breaker".  --Iamunknown 21:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Using the phrase "tiebreaker" here is confusing.  What I meant is that what we call a "discretionary case" is analogous to the "tie-breaking" situation in the Senate.  When an RFA or RFB is in the "discretionary range", the b'crat is given the mandate to resolve the situation by casting an up or down vote.  The only question is whether the b'crat needs to provide a justification for the vote.  I prefer that he/she does not do so.
 * The only situation where I want to see a justification is when the b'crat or b'crats decide to promote or deny a candidate whose support is outside the discretionary range (e.g. the Carnildo 2 RFA).
 * --Richard 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The discretionary range for the RFB is already extremely small, and the threshold painfully high. I can see absolutely no consensus for making the range of discretion narrower or eliminating it.  --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither can I. I don't think I proposed that.  Did you read what I wrote to imply that I did?
 * All I'm saying (and I think you are of this opinion as well) is that the discretionary range is intended to punt the decision to the b'crat to determine which way to push the RFA or RFB. Outside the discretionary range, we would appreciate the b'crat saying something like "I discounted a whole mess of meat/sock puppets and recently created SPA accounts".  Inside the range?  Mum's the word, the b'crat should just do it and we should just trust them.
 * The major difference between your opinion and mine is that, during the Carnildo 2 RFA, you argued that we should trust the b'crats even outside the discretionary range.
 * --Richard 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was responding to a comment by another editor ("Iamunknown").


 * Yes, obviously we should trust the bureaucrats to exercise very broad discretion, because in the short term at least it's the only way to get sensible results.  It isn't a vote and we should be clear about that fact.  One person with a good argument outweighs 100 people with a stupid one.  --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not for RfA, it doesn't. If only 1% of the community trusts someone, it doesn't matter if everyone who opposes does so because they believe someone must have 10,000 edits to be trusted. The community does not trust the guy, so he should not become an admin. -Amarkov moo! 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec, response to Tony Sidaway) Perhaps theoretically. However, a truly good argument should be capable of convincing at least some of those 100 morons, unless your view of humanity is even more Hobbesian than mine. If it couldn't do that, I'd wonder how good of an argument it truly was. MastCell Talk 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, in practice a good argument will sway opinion, though not enough to cause us to dispense with discretion and treat RFA as a vote. My point, express perhaps a little hyperbolically, is that the arguments are what matter, not the numbers.  The bureaucrats quite rightly cast aside a rather large amount of numerical opposition in the Danny RFA, because it was apparently based on actions taken by Danny as a paid representative of the Foundation.


 * Of course, the underlying problem is that there were Wikipedians so wrong-headed as to view his actions in furtherance of Foundation goals as in any way problematic. With nonsense like this swashing and swishing around in the system, we're definitely not going to be treating Wikipedia as a democracy. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We're wasting our time with hypotheticals. However, I think we can all agree that if 100 people said "no contribution to at least 1FA" was their reason to oppose an RFB (note: I mean RFB here not RFA), those 100 votes should be discounted as truly silly.  All we've asked for in the aftermath of the Carnildo 2 RFA is that these kinds of decisions be made transparent in cases outside the discretionary range so that we can understand what the rationale was.  Inside the discretionary range, it's such a close call that it is hard to argue that a decision to promote or deny is right or wrong.  If it could be clear, we wouldn't need b'crats.  --Richard 22:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Carnildo 2 was pretty groundbreaking. To refer to documentation of RFA promotions "outside the discretionary range" is contradictory, I think.  If the promotions were truly outside the range of bureaucrat discretion then the bureaucrats wouldn't be permitted to do them.  The bureaucrats can get away with anything that makes sense.  That's a pretty wide discretion.  The only limit really is that fact that if 100 people really did show up with a dumb reason to oppose then there'd be a lot more wrong with Wikipedia than RFA.  --Tony Sidaway 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

hidden RFA
Would it be possible to hold a RFA for someone without letting them know, then after the RFA let them know that they have the option of becoming an admin?--Cronholm144 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. --Deskana (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People accept nominations. Also, its quite hard for someone who is nominated for adminship but doesn't know it to answer questions. I don't consider it appropriate to simply copy-and-paste answers to questions from a previous, unsuccessful run if the user in question. In short, no. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for expounding on that no, the case I have in mind probably wouldn't require more than a name mention in order to garner votes though. I thought it would be a nice surprise.--Cronholm144 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec'd x 2) Er.... No you can't have a hidden RFA - as per the process the candidate must accept first. However I seem to remember some bloke mentioning once about going round and randomly sysoping some editors who've been here a while. 'Till that happens no way. Plus not everyone actually wants to take on the admin role / burden. Pedro | Chat  20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah. The way a candidate reacts during RfA can be an excellent indicator of their possible demeanor later on in their wiki-career (e.g. whalloping oppose commenters with a confrentational manner). Sean William @ 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (conflict)Given that the mop is given out as a demonstration of trust, I thought that in very few cases it would be a nice thing to honor someone with the community's trust without them having to ask. @Sean, the candidate I have in mind would probably be immune to that.--Cronholm144 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the main problem is the sheer impossibility of trying to hold a hidden RFA. There'd be no way to keep it secret. -- Cyde Weys 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * +1 for involuntary appointment. -1 for hidden RFAs. --Gmaxwell 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent)If they don't watch RFA and nobody tells them...--Cronholm144 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec'd x 2 again!) Cronholm - just go ahead and ask the user if you can nominate them via the usual process - I appreciate the generous and kind sentiment you are going for, but adminship is not a nice birthday surprise or whatever. Get their agreement and nom. them - I'm looking forward to it!! Pedro | Chat  20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is what I will probably do, but I wanted to test the waters here first.--Cronholm144 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't he happy sysopping a user that had the process carried out behind their back. An important part of RfA is getting to know the candidate. --Deskana (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro... just go ahead and ask me... I mean... uh...errr... "that person"... yeah, just ask that person... :-) Hiberniantears 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVASS and WP:BEANS :) (bought a smile that one - cheers Hiberniantears) Pedro | Chat  20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that's that, thanks for the input. :)--Cronholm144 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is random, but there is really an essay called don't stick beans up your nose. When do we get to read WP:Don't eat that red crayon, or WP:You drink Milk, not Glue?   New   England  (C) (H) 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Be Bold! Hiberniantears 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's better not to do one without the user's knowing, since people decline. I learned this the hard way, actually creating the nom first in this example. Wizardman 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Not a good idea. Worse that this - how would they answer the questions? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Dear, admins i would like to become an admin too i know that i made less articles but i've only been here since May 2007 i would stop vandalism and do whatever it take to stop it and help other users--Physik 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Admin
can i become one--Physik 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not likely at this time. 470 edits and less than 2 months experience is less than most people's thresholds to consider granting adminship.  I encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia.  To prepare to become an admin, read the RFA page and follow the links to pages providing more information.  If you need more assistance, you are welcome to ask either here or on my Talk Page.  --Richard 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas unlikely at the moment. 1) Start using the edit summary 2) Keep up the good work 3) use and abuse the generous offer of Richard above and the identical one that I offer you as well. Thank you for your contributions so far, and I look forward to seeing your around and interacting with you. My talk page is open!! Pedro |  Chat  21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts I've just thrown some WP:AGF out the window. This is a serious work. please oh please does not befit the quality of this encyclopedia, and even with some 470 edits (half to your talk page) you should have realised that kind of comment is ill placed and, well, silly. Sorry. Pedro | Chat  21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh, the only thing that kept this from resulting in a block was that it happened before the warnings that were left on the user's Talk Page. Anything more like that should result in a block but I'm hoping he's got the message finally. --Richard 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I let myself down by not reviewing his contribs fully before commenting. I claim WP:AGF in defence! Seriously, this is pretty much trolling by Physik. Let's move on and archive this rubbish away. Pedro | Chat  22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator numbers
There are currently 4,900,054 users of Wikipedia and only 1,278 administrators. Thats an extremely high normal user to administrator ratio. Perhaps there should be more admins, about 5000 I would think. Perhaps more requests should be accepted. Any other opinions? Wardhog 22:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many requests are fielded and accepted all the time. If you know of more users who are ready and willing to become admins, go ahead and nominate them. Andre (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How many of those 4,900,054 users are active? Or even made a single edit...sometimes that number is deceiving. RxS 22:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What's worse is that not all of the 1278 administrators are active. On the other hand, what are you basing your assessment of "normal user/admin ratio" on?  Do you have evidence that the admin backlogs are excessively high for extended periods of time?  From where do you get your target of 5000 admins?  --Richard 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I think I saw somewhere that about half the total amount of admins are active (however they defined active) RxS 22:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe we don't have as many active admins per active users as other projects do, but there is no massive shortage of admins here. Nor is there any reason to not keep promoting more. --Deskana (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The figure of 5,000 does appear to be arbitrary, though. Why fix on that?  The number of non-admin accounts is very over-inflated.  There are many 'block on sight' accounts created by vandals such as Mr. Oompapah, etc.  The number of active and registered editors is substantially smaller than four million.  The admin backlogs are kept in check for the most part and good candidates are selected in an ongoing basis.  Wikipedia continues exceeding well, to coin a phrase. (aeropagitica) 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what proportion of edits (and other actions) are performed by admins. I think that would be a better measure than the proportion of users that are admins since it takes into account activity (1 very active admin is more useful than 2 barely active ones, and 1 very active non-admin produces more admin work than 2 barely active ones). As far as I know, those statistics are not available, but they would still be interesting. --Tango 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The admin numbers are fine (IMO). If we keep promoting at our current rate (ie. we promote admins who we trust to improve the project, rather then just promote for the sake of a ratio), we shouldn't have any major problems in the foreseeable future.  Giggy  UCP 23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein to what Tango said above, the ratio is not really just (users/admins). Since user accounts never go away, they can do nothing but increase, and thus aren't a good indicator of overall activity. A large percentage of our user accounts are barely used (or never used). What we should be looking at is the number of admins per required administrative action. We lose some admins over time and add on others, but I'm not convinced that the across-the-board rate of Wikipedia edits (particularly setting aside bot or other automated edits) is still increasing rapidly. The (overall edits/month) statistics are badly outdated, but seem to indicate that this trend was already beginning last year. If we're hitting the top of our S curve, the problem with administrative backlogs will solve itself naturally over time. Dekimasu よ! 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remember that admins and other users also have to deal with edits by anonymous IPs, and a simple user/admin ration is also misleading for that reason. That said, the current rate of promotion to admin status I think is serving the project quite well. Recurring dreams 05:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen this question before, along with the equally misleading ratio of featured articles to total articles. (Of course, admins are not "featured users".)  The relevant question in each case is - who could be promoted or improved, but hasn't been noticed yet?  For every overeager self-nominating admin candidate with insufficient experience and a history of problems (yes, I'm looking in the mirror), there is another user who's minding their own business and doesn't even realize or care that he/she can help out with admin backlogs just by offering to do so.  Likewise with FAs, not all articles can be featured, but some are already close to that level, and just need a little more work to push them over the hump. Shalom Hello 05:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole question is a non-issue. Of the 4 million registered users, the vast majority are either inactive, indef-blocked, or have never made an edit in the first place. In reality, it's a few thousand contributors who do most of the important work around here - and a fair proportion of those are admins. Mostly, those who aren't are either too new, too controversial, or aren't aiming to become admins. So I don't think we actually have a problem with the admin-to-user ratio. (The problem we do have is with the bureaucrat-to-user and the arbitrator-to-user ratio, but that's another point entirely.) WaltonOne 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Aaron Schwartz's research most of our text is written by casual users. "When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site -- the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it's the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content." Haukur 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting... I hadn't seen that research before, and had assumed that the conventional wisdom was accurate (i.e. that Wikipedia is mostly written by a small number of users). I think the issue here is that Wikipedia is really three different communities. Firstly, there's the "core" community; those of us who hang around RfA, AfD, FAC and the other centralised points of Wikipedia, discuss stuff, and get our names known. Quite a high proportion of those are admins. Secondly, there's the peripheral community. These are the m:exopedians; the people who write and/or improve articles. They may have thousands of edits, but they're not likely to be well-known by other editors, except those who work on the same articles as them, and they may not be familiar with the intricacies of wiki-process. Thirdly, there's that vast mass of casual users - anonymous users and infrequent registered users - some of whom contribute important stuff (more than I'd thought, as per that research you cited), while others vandalise, but none of them are active participants in the "core" of Wikipedia, and none would be interested in being admins, or suitable to be admins. But among the "core" community, the ratio of admins to users is fairly high. WaltonOne 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from Walton, but that separates and divides, and possibly, and probably indirectly, infers elitism. But I see your point. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying it was a good thing; it's just how it is at the present time. For the record I'm a strong opponent of elitism (hence why I've suggested that voting might not be such a bad thing as everyone thinks). But I was analysing the present situation. WaltonOne 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. And I do agree that voting on RFA is the way to go for that reason among others. Haukur 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do the rarities come - I mean, as in oversights, checkusers, arbitrators, crats, devs - in this structure Walton? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They're part of the core community, obviously. What worries me is the present movement towards greater bureaucrat discretion in closing RfAs, which risks creating a small elite with great power - in effect a Jedi Council, with authority to confer the rank of Jedi Master (admin). This is very dangerous; bureaucrats (and admins) ought to be functionaries who carry out the will of the community, not decision-makers in their own right. I've written a couple of essays on Meta about this topic - m:wikidemocratism, m:wikipolitics, and others. WaltonOne 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The ratio of 1278 admins out of nearly 5 million accounts is not a relevant one, considering that the absolute majority of accounts are inactive. "As of September 2006, Wikipedia had 43000 'active' editors (5+ edits per month), of which 4330 were 'very active' (100+ edits per month). In September '06, we had about 1050 admins, of whom just above 800 were active (see Image:En-admin-vs-article-growth.png). Thus, the figure 0.03% underestimates the admin-editors ratio by a factor of about 60. Realistically, admins comprise 1.9% of the 'active' Wikipedia community. I still think that's a lower percentage than would be desirable, but that's a different matter. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)" The above is quoted from Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Active admins comprise 1.9% of active Wikipedians and 18% of "very active" Wikipedians, as defined above. I can't say what the current ratios are, but I doubt they've changed too much. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned the ratio is fairly stable as it is right now. You can't really expect all (or a majority, even) users to be active or even useful/good hearted. Nevertheless, it would help if we could delete old accounts.
 * I assume there are plenty of people who registered three or four years ago but have never edited a single article. Shouldn't old, inactive accounts be deleted every once in a while? Every new year we could do some 'cleaning' and remove those accounts from the database. -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Delete unused username after 90 days. Garion96 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ^Quite an interesting read. It's pity that policy was not implement, though. It would most certainly help keeping Wikipedia a lot tidier. -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would also reduce the number of WP:CHU/U as well. hbdragon88 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually need article writing?
For the umpteenth time, an article writing thread: Okay. I feel like starting another article writing thread. How is article writing related to adminship? In my mind, there is no relationship, except for a few things that only a few people work on.
 * Does one need to know how to write an article in order to block a vandal at AIV?
 * No. One needs some common sense, the ability to see that someone is replacing pages with "I like cheese!", and a mouse to click the block button.
 * Does one need to know how to write an article in order to determine if a username is inappropriate at UAA?
 * No. Once again, all they need is some common sense and the block button.
 * Does one need to know how to write an article in order to close an xFD?
 * No. Though you could say yes, since it's about articles and you should be writing them in order to be deciding whether to keep them or not, it's not needed, because it's not the admin's decision. It's the peoples. All the admin does is determine consensus and decide whether there is consensus to delete or keep the page, and hit the delete button.
 * Does one need to know how to write an article in order to handle requests for page protection?
 * No. All they have to do is look at the history, see there's a lot of vandalism or an edit war, and hit the protect button.
 * Does one need to know how to write an article in order to do basic admin tasks
 * No. All they need is for the community to trust that they will not delete the main page or block Jimbo.
 * If someone who doesn't do a lot of article writing runs for RFA, and in there answer to Q1, they mention nothing that would require article writing experience, should they be promoted?
 * Yes.

All you need to be an admin is competency in the areas in which you intend to use the tools, and common sense not to use the tools in situations and places where you lack experience. Not everyones niche may be article writing. Maybe they just like Wikipedia. If someone is good at reporting and reverting vandals, there's no reason why they shouldn't be blocking them. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree on some of your points, in particular I think article writing experience is very helpful to determine whether to act on a request for page protection. You have to ask yourself: "Will protecting the article at this point make it easier or harder for the editors involved to work out a compromise?" It's hard to answer questions like that unless you've got some experience writing articles and working out compromises on them. Haukur 20:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, the talk page is the best place to work out problems. Secondly, the question you asked, is once again, common sense. To determine if it will make it harder or easier you don't need to be able to write. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Contributing significantly to article writing puts you into a whole sub-community who work on this Wikipedia subject point. You take an active part in discussions to help bring the page forward and improve it. You build up interaction skills. You put using references and such-like into practice and that builds up a wealth of knowledge when newer users come to you as an admin asking for assistance. Although I am not yet an admin, I get asked by new users on varying topics, usually article-writing-based because that's what a lot of new users start with when they first start out on Wikipedia, and due to my active article participation, I am able to assist them. I would say that extensive article contribution would be most valuable on an RfA.  Lra drama 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The job of an admin is not to help a new user though. Anyone can help a new user, as you do yourself. I'm talking about if you need article writing for the things I mentioned above. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent)Yes, it is the job of an admin to help new users. It is the job of all people involved in Wikipedia. You can choose to take part in that facet or not, but it is a requirement.
 * The rest of what you stated above is way too simplistic, and in some cases flat wrong. IMHO, anyone without experience in writing for the project is out of touch with the goals of the project and why the rules of the project need to be enforced. It's not just seen in admin candidates either, but in people who've been admins and stopped participating in writing.  The rules exist to serve the project.  You are saying that "cop admins" can exist to serve the rules.
 * Does an admin need to know article writing in order to block a vandal at AIV?
 * YES! AIV gets reports of spammers. AIV gets reports of sockpuppets.  AIV gets reports by people putting reports at AIV in the hopes that some otherwise admin not paying attention will block their antagonist editors.  Not all people reported as spammers are spamming.  You need to know the EL policies in order to decide.  It may require a nuanced judgment, in which case the only place to acquire the wisdom to make that judgment is through article writing and experience.  An experienced admin can also make a quick end to a sockpuppet claim, and should also be able to see past the behaviors of warring editors.  You don't get that experience by being a cop, you get it by interacting with the editors.
 * SchmuckyTheCat
 * SchmuckyTheCat, about half those things can be resolved – as R previously stated – using common sense. I'm not – and I think R is not – saying that WP:COMMONSENSE overrules all policies, but rather most admin-related duties can be solved by using common sense. —  «  A NIMUM   »  02:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Potentially controversial actions require more than common sense, however. And shying away from controversy is not something I want to see in an admin candidate. — Kurykh  02:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Sometimes more than common sense is needed. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, one could use his or her good judgment, logic, and experience to figure it out. I'm sure those are requirements for every admin candidate. —  «  A NIMUM   »  02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I'd go through most of the items listed by R/TeckWiz above, and answer "yes" rather than "no" as to whether article-writing experience is needed. For example: But just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 02:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you don't really need mainspace experience as an admin. But you do need to show competence in understanding and applying policy. And in some cases, this is really hard to adequately show without at least some mainspace editing. -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And before someone quotes this out of context at me, my "article writing is irrelevant" quote was in response to people complaining that I don't edit articles enough. The proportion of mainspace to other edits is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Handling AIV complaints: What is vandalism? What is a content dispute? Where is the line? A lot of things get reported to AIV which are not vandalism, and without some experience in article-writing I think one would be at a disadvantage in terms of sorting some of them out.
 * Usernames... OK, I guess article-writing has nothing to do with that, really.
 * Closing XfD: Absolutely article-writing experience is needed. In a close or controversial AfD, it's important to have a sense for how the notability criteria are applied in practice, how much an article can be improved, whether the problems are fixable (e.g. NPOV) or unfixable (notability), and how much weight to accord specific arguments when judging consensus (after all, it's not a vote). Again, I think anyone closing AfD is at a major disadvantage if they lack article-writing and AfD participation experience.
 * RFPP: Again, absolutely some experience in editing controversial or edit-war-prone topics would be useful here.
 * For all of these article-writing posts, I am beginning to think the general feel that article writing is something which does not matter too much to potential admin candidates, and that they are trying to get the message across that it is not needed to the !voters. This is probably also happening in the reverse. i think this really needs discussion, proper attention by the community, because, quite frankly, I',m sure I'm not the only one who is tired of these posts. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I definately have to agree with AnonymousDissident here. All these debates about whether a candidate needs article-writing experience or not is accomplishing very little. Captain   panda  02:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How is article writing being defined? Writing content-rich prose based on extensive research? Wikification? Removing unsourced statements? Users should "traffic in" mainspace one way or another, but creating over-specific metrics for the sake of creating metrics seems selfish and does not benefit the project. Grace notes T § 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Article writing has the virtue of being the best way to demonstrate a commitment to and interest in the project, not just the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that this will turn out like all our other arguments where nothing gets done and everyone is split down the middle, I'm going to sit on the fence here because both sides have good points. How ever I find in most cases if a realy good candidate is at rfa and the only bad thing about them is little article work I normally will support but if its a really bad candidate and the only good think about them is article work I would normaly oppose. In general I think a heathly combination of article work and maintenance and or vandal fighting is a good thing. --  C h r i s   g
 * To answer the question, you need to look at several prospects. Say a person who has no edits to article expansion or writing is on adminship. (Unlikely situation, but try to imagine it) Despite that fact, he created the policies and guidelines concerning verifiability, notability, NPOV, and has never made a disruptive or incivil edit. Would you support or oppose? -- Dark Falls  talk 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not oppose nominees for lack of article writing, it clearly draws my attention and causes me to look even more critically at their overall contributions. My reason is purely subjective (i.e., I have no proof of my hypothesis) but based on experience I prefer an article-writing editor for certain functions, particularly CSD. If someone tags an article such as "Company X makes billiard balls", an admin who focuses on vandal fighting is likely to zap the article on sight. An article-writing editor may see that same sentence and take another few seconds on Google to discover that the company is the third largest maker of billiard balls in the world and has been in business since 1895. He or she will add a source or two, a couple of links and a category and we'll have a stub that future writers can build on. For me it's not a matter of whether a nominee for admin has the talents or inclination to bring an article to FA, because that talent really does not have a direct relationship to using the tools. Having the curiosity and willingness to save an article (and perhaps draw in the original author rather than alienate him by deleting his article) is the difference between a so-so admin and a good one. If someone has been here long enough to accumulate several thousand edits and has never stumbled upon topics where they feel the urge to improve the article (more than fixing typos and adding tags), I question whether they can really use the tools wisely in areas like CSD. In those cases, I may support someone with a statement that they "will not abuse the tools" but I would not give them my higher compliment that "they will use the tools wisely". Given a choice, I would always prefer a candidate who I believe will use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 talk 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ! Some excellent points there. I agree totally with the sentiment about how an article-writing admin is more likely to take the time to stop and consider a candidate for speedy deletion, rather than just hitting "delete". Carcharoth 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with DS1953 on that one. —  «  A NIMUM   »  17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My philosophy on whether to support or not is based on the caption to the image on Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. It says "In deciding whether to give Wikipe-tan a mop, our question should be whether she can clean stuff up, not whether she is a published novelist". This is a good viewpoint, because it shows that you should have some writing experience, but not over the top. A candidate should be judged mostly on their "cleaning" ability, or how they can utilize the inner workings to better the encyclopedia. Think of a school janitor: whether the janitor can teach or not is not a quality on which you can judge their janitorial abilities, but they do have to have some level of intelligence. You have to know how well they are able to cleanup without having the title of janitor.  J- stan  Talk 01:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Article writing experience is different then article reading experience, an editor with good article reading experience can read articles to determine


 * Handling AIV complaints: What is vandalism? What is a content dispute? Where is the line? A lot of things get reported to AIV which are not vandalism, and without some experience in article-reading I think one would be at a disadvantage in terms of sorting some of them out.
 * Usernames... OK, I guess article-reading has nothing to do with that, really.
 * Closing XfD: Absolutely article-reading experience is needed. In a close or controversial AfD, it's important to have a sense for how the notability criteria are applied in practice, how much an article can be improved, whether the problems are fixable (e.g. NPOV) or unfixable (notability), and how much weight to accord specific arguments when judging consensus (after all, it's not a vote). Again, I think anyone closing AfD is at a major disadvantage if they lack article-reading and AfD participation experience.
 * RFPP: Again, absolutely some experience in reading and editing controversial or edit-war-prone topics would be useful here.
 * Tcrow777 talk  04:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am chiming in here for the sole purpose of also *applauding* DS1953's remarks. Often I see the "janitor" analogy touted as the essential mindset for WP admins. Routinely, it is offered in a tone of self-deprecation: "Hey, we're only mere janitors!"


 * This mindset is a bit troubling, because: 1) janitors are important too, so the "only mere" shtick tends to sound perfunctory and disingenuous after a while; and 2) there is a distinct sense of humility (or humiliation) one gains by having one's work treated as nothing more than a mere puddle of vomit that needs to be quickly cleaned up and dispatched before further nauseating the hapless onlooking passers-by with the grave misfortune of stumbling upon it.


 * There are a lot of energetic and eager contributors out there who will become avid supporters of WP if their "puddles" are cleaned up with patience, a well-rounded sense of perspective, good humor and mutual respect. These qualities are precisely the kinds of things editing experience can provide. It's one thing to "read" ... and another thing to "clean" ... but when you've actually *built* ... you gain valuable insight that does not come easily any other way. dr.ef.tymac 05:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Caldorwards4's RfA
I noticed that several users tried to close this RfA as unsuccessful, but they were reverted for some reason. I don't understand what's not obvious about this RfA: more users opposed than supported, and they all had legitimate concerns. There was no problem with a non-bureaucrat closing that RfA. Andre (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bureaucrats have in the past asked non-crats not to close RfAs unless they are (1) snowball fails or (2) the candidate has withdrawn. There is a logic for non-crats closing unambiguous fails as well - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no discretion to be exercised etc. However similar arguments come up to those about non-admins declining unblock requests - in those case, however unlikely the request is to be granted, the user is seeking review from an admin. Where a candidate does not withdraw their RfA although a consensus is clearly not present, they are really asking for a bureaucrat to make that determination (however certain that it will be unfavourable). So although there doesn't seem much harm in non-crats closing obviously fails (the only problem is if by increment non-crats start closing RfAs that are less clear-cut), it does seem to me a courtesy to the candidate to leave it for a bureaucrat to close. There is no rush to close these; a failed RfA (unlike a successful one) entails no change of status and there is no cost that I can see to the community of these being closed later. WjBscribe 08:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

However, in hindsight, I certainly do wish I hadn't done anything; for such a trivial matter, this has gotten blown way out of proportion. *sigh* EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering I was the first one to close the RfA, I can honestly say that I don't see a problem with closing RfAs that are so far out of discretionary range (the RfA report listed the numerical support at 42%). I understand the argument of "it doesn't hurt anything to leave it open", but the equally valid counter is "it doesn't hurt anything to close it" when it such an obvious result (that's not bold because I'm trying to prove a point, but because I draw a clear distinction between <50% RfAs and >50% RfAs; the former I see no problem with non-crats, or at least admins, closing, the later I'm uncomfortable about, and have noted as such on my talk page). I understand that the bureaucrat's position in the community is to determine community consensus and have been entrusted with the tools to execute that consensus, but that doesn't make them a group of magical editors that are the only ones that can do regular editing; the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" bit traditionally applies to project-level stuff as well, and as long as common sense is used (which I think it was, though very rarely do I not think I use common sense...), there's no problem.
 * I actually agree with your final sentiment, EVula, tho about me reverting you! Anyway, I think WJBscribe made a good point above about creeping non-cat discretion. I've seen a lot of unclear AFDs closed improperly by non-sysops.--Chaser - T 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide some examples (three or four of your "a lot" would be useful) of where a non-sysops, (which, I assume also means a non-'crat) has improperly closed an unclear AFD? Thanks Bielle 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some examples as well. I think generally non-bureaucrats close RfAs when it's appropriate, as EVula did in this case. Andre (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. I've closed snowball fails in the past and always provided feedback to the candidate as to why I performed such an action and what they can do to improve their performance on a subsequent attempt. (aeropagitica) 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You all did notice I said AFDs, not RFAs, right? I meant AFDs, because the window of proper non-crat closures at RFA, if we create it, could well be improperly extended in the same way it's sometimes been by non-sysops at AFD. Tell me if you still want those examples and I'll dig them up.--Chaser - T 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with EVula closing this RfA. Below 50% isn't even considered "no consensus," it is "failed," the RfA ran its full course, there was no discretion involved and there were no buttons to be pushed. So those circumstances it was OK by me; moreso even than "snowball." However, some admins had in the past gotten too frisky in judging "live" RfA as not being capable of passing. This ended pretty much after someone was WP:BOLD and decided that a candidate had failed and left Wikipedia halfway through the RfA. Since no one could offer a direct statement by the candidate that he had left the project and/or withdrew, the nomination, I restored it, and some criticized me for it--as most of you know, the candidacy went on to win comfortably. If there is any chance (not just "almost no chance") an RfA might be revived, leave it to a bureaucrat. -- Cecropia 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think one good result of all this would be some clarification. Redux's earlier post on this issue was not the same msg as this comment (he saw withdrawal, clear, disruption, and a clear failure to understand what a sysop does as reasons for non-crats to de-list). I'm fine with what Andre and Cecropia suggest, but I would appreciate it if the various 'crats were all on the same page on this.--Chaser - T 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any great conflict between me and Redux on this point. You will note two things about the nomination that Redux cited: it was more than 50%; if it were above, it is a consensus issue, and should be looked at by a bureaucrat, just for the stability of the process; and it was for the position of bureaucrat. Under 50% is failed, plain and simple; and I believe that since bureaucrat is considered more sensitive by the community, a current bureaucrat should close just to emphasize that the RfB was properly reviewed and closed definitively. And I'll repeat what I said above: If there is any chance (not just "almost no chance") an RfA might be revived, leave it to a bureaucrat. to which I'll append, if you have to ask yourself whether or not it is proper to remove an RfA yourself, it isn't and, if there is the slightest thought that a reasonable editor might challenge your action, don't do it. I see no problem in admins doing housekeeping at RfA if they choose to, just as clerks on WP:CHU vet renames for the 'crats, but the keyword is housekeeping. If it can be called a decision, leave it be. A little more work for the 'crats is preferable to a Wikibroil. -- Cecropia 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Cecropia. I have no problem with EVula closing that particular RfA, given the fact that a bureaucrat would have been garotted by the community for promoting from that RfA. --Deskana (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Disrpuptive editing by Kmweber
As you will all knowm, Kmweber has been making extreme violations of WP:POINT, just looking at his contributions you can see he has made several !votes in RfA's within the space of minutes, one time he !voted in two within the space of one minute, solely because of his little phrase: I see self noms as being power hungry. What is proposed we do and would it be acceptable to strike out all of his comments as he is clearly not even taking the time to review the user. Rlest 09:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be reported to ANI instead of here, IMHO.  Mi r a n da   09:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it here and move it there too. Rlest  09:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me what's wrong with his oppose reason? Other than you disagree with him. Please also remember that RfA is not a vote (adding an exclamation mark does not change the word's meaning). Should your comments be struck? Matthew 09:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but look at his contribs, between 00:55 and 01:10 he commented on 11 RfA's, thats approximately one every fifty seconds, he couldn't possibly have reviewed the user and made a decision in that time, he clearly just copied and pasted his own little personal and frankly stupid reason to oppose, if he continues Jaranda commented on his talk page she would block him, although not a requirement it is generally considered good faith and polite to actually explain your reason for oppose/neutral but if you support and you have no comments to make you dont have to make any, why you're opposing should be made clear if you are polite, serious WP:POINT violations by him and his silly little reasons :) Rlest  09:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if he doesn't read the comments and questions etc (note: I don't read the questions when supporting or opposing a candidate, either. Rarely do I read candidate statements.) The user has given a perfectly valid reason to oppose, you just happen to disagree with it, that doesn't make his reason wrong, though. If anybody is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point it's you, not Kirk. Matthew 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How exactly, by commenting here and at ANI &mdash; ::I dont think so. I seem to remember at Requests for adminship/Qst you left a weird poem which was striked out pending an explanation, disruption - I dont think so mate. Rlest  09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what makes you think I opposed your RfA with a poem (actually part of a song...) It was actually me trying to be civil, without being uncivil, because I couldn't describe my strong feelings nicely. Anyway, isn't this subject about Kirk? Not your RfA, so why are you shifting the subject? Matthew 09:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I appeared uncivil here and I think we'll have to agree to disagree, what makes you think its me? Rlest  09:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a habit of dropping the apostrophe in don't. Matthew 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure sign this post has become very feeble: while I agree with Rlest, we have spiraled into arguing about apostrophes. However, I think that something should be done about Kurt he cant can't keep doing this. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're completely right Anonymous Dissident :). Rlest  11:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(arb-unindent) Ladies and gents. If you've made it to WT:RFA you are already a seasoned editor. If your are a seasoned editor you know all about not feeding the trolls. Kurt can slap his opinion on every single self nom. I doubt the closing crats take any notice of it these days (but would welcome a 'crat to comment). If his opinion is that self-noms are a bad thing just leave it to him, he is entitled to that opinion. I've seen too many editors arguing the point back in the middle of someone's RFA. Frankly I've even made light of it, as has the undertow in his self-nomination! We've bigger problems here than this. Ignore it and hopefully the problem will go away. If it doesn't, no harm either. Best. Pedro | Chat  11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedro is right; sure its annoying but its the poor people or RfA who didn't want any opposes and dont deserve opposes who I feel sorry for. All the best &mdash; Rlest  11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If people truly think he's a troll, he should be blocked until he agrees to stop. Why would we allow someone to be disruptive? The idea that some people just get to go on merrily trolling is disturbing. Not that I'm not sure it constitutes trolling exactly, but some people apparently are. --W.marsh 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would everyone agree that it would be acceptable to remove all comments about self noms made by Kurt from RfA's as he left that same comment at four users RfA's within the space of 1 minute, he wouldn't even have had time to type that messages out let alone actually reivew the user &mdash; he copied and pasted it clearly. So would it be considered acceptable among you guy's to remove all his comments from RfA's which are unjustified as the poor people on RfA who dont deserve oppose votes are having to put up with this because of one users ignorance. &mdash; Rlest  14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. Although I strongly disagree with Weber's stance on these issues, he is nonetheless expressing a legitimate point of view in the correct forum, which does not constitute disruption by any reasonable definition, and is not a WP:POINT violation. The only way it would be disruptive is if his comment were to tip the balance between a pass and a fail - and in such circumstances, where the case fell within the bureaucrats' discretionary range, I doubt his view would be given much weight. So I strongly object to the idea of removing or striking his comment. He has a !right (OK, a conditional privilege, but a "right" that is enjoyed by all Wikipedians in good standing) to express his opinion on an RfA. WaltonOne 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the correct forum? The correct forum would be here, the talk page. Wizardman  14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (undent) How many times do we need to discuss this? Are we going to keep on it until someone gets the decision that they are looking for or can we just move on to more important matters?  Please see Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 7 for at least one prior discussion.  In particular, I ask you to read my post on that thread about the meaninglessness of this topic. --After Midnight 0001 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Those sort of oppose votes might be annoying, but getting annoyed about them says as much about the people getting annoyed as it does about Mr Weber. Some relevant points. Firstly, don't feel sorry for the people getting a single oppose vote 'spoiling' their RfA - if the nominee or you feel that RfA is about "passing with 100%", then you and the nominee need to stop and think hard about what that says about your attitude to RfA. Secondly, the speed of his !votes means nothing. He could have taken several hours to read the nominations and go through contributions, and then added his oppose !vote. The correct course of action is to discuss this with him on his user page and try and find out why he is doing this. Carcharoth 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA is currently at 48/2 and one of those opposes is Kurt. It doesn't bother me in the slightest - obviously I don't agree with him, but if that's his opinion then he's entitled to it. What happens if/when Kurt's vote tips an RfA into the "grey area" percentage-wise, is another question though, I think. I'm guessing in that case the closing 'crat would use his/her common sense. E LIMINATOR JR  TALK  16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I find his reasoning plausible and probably in good faith, although I don't find enough "power" in being an Admin that being "power-hungry" would be a reason for self-nomination. (I haven't looked at his history, but this particular set of !votes shows only a lack of knowledge, rather than bad faith.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess something that bothers me in his voting is that he does not vote in the nommed RfAs, and as a result I have yet to see a support vote from him. I think if he was a regular here and just had that one bother, it would be a far less deal than it is. Wizardman 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there is this one ... Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2 ....  E LIMINATOR JR  TALK  19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What if he nominated someone for adminship? Would that help? Would he oppose himself if he nominated himself? :-) Carcharoth 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we'll always have this: Requests for adminship/Kmweber... Hiberniantears 17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This maybe some may of taking revenge on us, I suppose I made too much of a big deal out of it, never midn if he wants to continue then thats fine but its not giving him a good name. &mdash; Rlest  17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion has changed somewhat after noting that he had a previous self-nom RfA; his views begin to look less like strongly-held principle (which I respect) and more like sour grapes. And some of the stuff brought up in that RfA was worrying, albeit a long time ago; adding controversial unsourced and dubious info to articles, using "spelling corrections" as the edit summary in order to mask his actions? Doesn't leave me thinking highly of his character, even if it was 2+ years ago. WaltonOne 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I stumbled across this just now. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good (sadly it's an essay, not consensus). Walton's change of opinion is interesting, and I agree - sour grapes is the exact phrase. So, per my previous post on this thread, let's just ignore it. Reference this thread by all means when he comments again, but let's not argue it back and forth in someones RFA. If / When RFA becomes a straight vote then maybe it might be worthwhile to discount votes based on self noms, but until then Kurt can pop his comment in as he feels, and it won't have the slightest difference on the outcome. Pedro | Chat  20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say it's just "sour grapes" when my RfA was over two years ago, and I didn't start doing what I'm doing now on RfAs until just last month. People's views change. Kurt Weber 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User:CurtVeber; uh... WP:POINT account? Wizardman  22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I just wonder what Kurt Weber hopes to accomplish, and whether his chosen tactics actually advance his goal. If his goal is to convince others of the dangers of self-noms, then not only is he failing to win hearts and minds, but he's having the opposite effect and pissing people off. If his goal is to influence individual RfA's, then it should be noted that his votes are highly likely to be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. If the goal is just to say, "Hey, look at me," well, then, mission accomplished. MastCell Talk 22:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Running around naked would be a much more effective way to achieve that mission. And he wouldn't have to receive continuous threads here because of it. Yo, Kurt, what's your actual aim?  Giggy  UCP 22:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, running around naked is generally useless in terms of garnering attention on Wikipedia. Take my word for it. MastCell Talk 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, not literally naked...but the online equivalent. Take my word for it. - Er...*shudder*  Giggy  UCP 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Kmweber may not realize that with respect to many roles in Wikipedia, most if not all selection begins with self-nomination. For example, bureaucrat nominations are generally self-noms (that's not as universal as it used to be, but a couple of weeks ago when someone other than the candidate did a bureaucrat nomination, an experienced contributor actually asked if this was a change of policy). The Arbitration Committee elections are self-noms exclusively (last year, when someone tried to "draft" me to run, people opined that this was out-of-process and no mechanism exists for anything other than self-noms). At the Meta level, the elections for Stewards and for Board members all are self-noms at all. In this context, a self-nomination for adminship really is nothing out of the ordinary by Wiki standards. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, when RfA was created, all admins were self-selected (thus "requests" for adminship). Soon enough another section called "nominations for adminship" was created, but these nominations actually came after so-called self-nominations. Check the page history of RfA if you don't believe me. I don't know exactly when regular nominations overtook self-noms as the predominant form of admin selection (this was already the case when I arrived at RfA in 2004). Andre (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this? Let Kurt Weber oppose for whatever reason he wants, however absurd they may be. It's not like actions don't have consequences other than perennial threads on WT:RFA. — Kurykh  22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To Kurt. I don't understand how you can say it's just "sour grapes" when my RfA was over two years ago, and I didn't start doing what I'm doing now on RfAs until just last month. People's views change. I have no problems with you changing your view. That's a good thing. The problem I have is with the comment "doing what I'm doing now". How are you expecting your stock line of oppose will further the work of the encyclopedia and its editors ? Pedro |  Chat  22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem that the community as a whole has emphatically rejected his rationale, by regularly promoting qualified self-noms and by repeatedly supporting the ability to self-nominate when the question comes up here. So one would presume that the bureaucrats are giving as little consideration to his remarks as they would to others that flatly contradict community norms. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm more annoyed with the misuse of the term "prima facie" than anything else.
 * No, I'm using the phrase quite properly. Kurt Weber 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a prima facie case ceases to hold in the face of contrary evidence. Since you refuse to consider any contrary evidence, you don't seem to understand what a prima facie case is. -Chunky Rice 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurt's comments are not disruptive, and do not violate any policies. They are, however, not very useful for determining consensus, and as a bureaucrat I would probably just ignore them if it was really an issue (just as bureaucrats used to do with Boothy443, who would go around opposing tons of RfAs for no reason at all and leaving no comment). Andre (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, in principle I completely agree - there's nothing disruptive about expressing a reasoned opinion at RfA, even if it's miles outside community norms. And I respect and understand his reasoning, even though I disagree with it. I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologise for accusing Mr. Weber of "sour grapes", since he's correct that views can change over time, and there's no evidence that he holds a grudge over something which happened two years ago. WaltonOne 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't we have a similar situation several months ago when a certain editor decided to start opposing RFAs pending evidence of involvement in a Wikiproject? If  wants to oppose for that, it's his prerogative; I somehow doubt that as a lone oppose reason is going to be given much weigh by the Bureaucrats.--Isotope23 talk 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes we did. It wasn't just involvement, it was endorsement. What was unusual is that the Projects as a collective would not endorse individuals, so the standard was pretty much unattainable. the_undertow talk  20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right... it was endorsement, spawning the ever popular WikiProject Endorsements.--Isotope23 talk 04:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that. Those comments are priceless. the_undertow talk  18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed this oppose in many RfAs. I suggest taking a look at his unsuccesful RfA. On reviewing this, I found many opposes related to his actions at this AfD, and how he might try to push an agenda of his own. He obviously has hard feelings about this, and so he violates WP:POINT. His RfA failed as a self-nom because the community saw one thing - power hunger.  J- stan  Talk 21:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Inquest
Hello,

I recently submitted an unsuccessful request for administrative privileges, and I would like some clarification on why the request was shot down. It appears that using the tools for improving/maintaining main space content (e.g. deleting copyright violations, moving pages over redirects, and working on XfD backlogs) was insufficient for submitting such a request.

Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated. --Aarktica 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not the first person who has failed an RFA because of an insufficient answer to question 1. The truth is that as an RFA voter, I don't care if an admin candidate will ever use the tools.  I care that he knows how to use them.  If you say that you need admin tools to wikify articles, that may simply be a misunderstanding of the question, or it may imply that you think admin tools are necessary to wikify articles.  I'm not an admin, and I have wikified many articles, and nominated many others for deletion.


 * Another item of concern, which did not arise in the RFA, was that you don't seem to have a firm grasp of the speedy deletion criteria as of June 22, one month ago. I found these two edits in your contribution log.  Admittedly, I have not seen all the valid speedy tags you have placed on bad articles, so this is a skewed sample, and does not indicate a general problem.  However, in these two cases I would probably not have used the speedy tag.  For the bio article, there was some assertion of notability (he authored two books) and an interwiki link to a Nederlands article at the time you tagged it.  For the disambig article about geography, "listcruft" is a subjective term, but the CSDs are meant to be objective.  In both cases WP:PROD or WP:AFD would have been better options.  Since admins are allowed to delete articles "on sight", it is preferable for them to act conservatively in using this power.  As the deletion policy states, "When in doubt, don't delete." Shalom Hello 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, linking articles does not require administrative access. What I meant was that most instances of copyright violation I have run into were also in CAT:WIKIFY. Many of those I nominated for deletion were also found there.
 * As for the WP:CSD errors, I plead guilty and will be more cautious going forward. --Aarktica 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'm probably not the first person who has written this, but if you maintain a good record of editing, you should have no trouble passing RFA in another three months or so.  Shalom Hello 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows spoilers in title bar
The title bar of the main RfA page appears to have been hacked to include spoilers to Deathly Hallows. Espresso Addict 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see it, and there's nothing in the history. Perhaps a transcluded page? Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed it too. It says on my RFA page too --AW 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange, because I don't see anything... — M o e   ε  20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A-ha! Stealth vandalism. See . Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC)There is a template in a user's signature. I'll try to weed it out. the_undertow talk  20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind! Tjstrf took care of it. Nice work! the_undertow talk  20:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've now indefinitely blocked the editor. Good times. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers all! Espresso Addict 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say that was a fun distraction and a very interesting form of vandalism. the_undertow talk  21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fun eh? Not for those who came late to the party and wonder what on earth y'all are talking about, and cannot find out because the evidence has now been apparently obliterated. At least someone could'a copied to WP:BJAODN *sigh* :/ dr.ef.tymac 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That would have been a WP:BEANS violation. — Kurykh  21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to nitpick, but there is no such thing as a "WP:BEANS violation". It's a rationale for explaining a course of action, not a prohibition or a requirement in itself. That's why it says "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline" ... Besides, there's already enough evidence in this discussion thread to constitute a "beans violation" as it is, if you wanna look at it that way. Are you gonna obliterate all evidence of this thread, including the "A-ha stealth vandalism!" bit? dr.ef.tymac 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you take sarcasm a bit too seriously. — Kurykh  21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah. I've just seen so many strange statements regarding WP "violations" that it's difficult to distinguish instances of "wit" from instances of "wtf" from contributors I haven't edited with before ... sorry if I misinterpreted the humor, irony, sarcasm or intent of your remark <- not sarcasm. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm late, aren't I? Suppose I'll have to go buy the book/force a friend to spoil it for me. Damn :(  Giggy  UCP 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just rent The Crying Game. Same ending, only different. the_undertow talk  22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or you could RTFW. ;) --tjstrf talk 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Woot. Ending ruined. /me goes to edit 100000000 articles in rage.  Giggy  UCP 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I never would have guessed that Ron was actually Voldemort all this time. The ending came as quite a... crap, forgot to toss spoiler up. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank God I read the book already.  — Kurykh  04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when was Ron Voldemort??? You trying to pull our legs EVula? Luck I've already read it. :p -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, EVual is Voldemort ;) Giggy  UCP 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I can see that. It's believable, considering the large variety of insults EVula a.k.a Voldemort has received. :p --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which would have been an incredibly funny comment, but you misspelled EVula. Ahh well, it's still funny! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Moral Support
What is moral support? I've seen this on a few RfAs, and I don't know what it means.  J- stan  Talk 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The admin candidate has no hope of passing, but the person is giving a support. Flyguy649 talk contribs 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is synonymous with encouragement. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of a new Wikipedian requesting adminship, this is a nice way not to say oppose. Greeves (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * sums it up nicely with his comment here. Giggy  UCP 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Moral support, which isn't the most complete article, but it hopefully explains a bit. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If ever you are looking for a definition of a term used on this website, it is best to first look it up - it is an encyclopedia after all, perfectly demonstrated by Luna Santin there.  Lra drama 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can just imagine wiktionary having something like: Moral Support - see Requests for adminship/TheFearow. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I took it to mean that J-stan wanted to know what a 'moral support' vote means as far as RfAs are concerned. The first time I saw it, I was curious about the connotation myself. the_undertow talk  08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a bit confusing. They're a bit weird, because they are basically a positive neutral (if that makes any sense). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you everyone!  J- stan  Talk 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * TheFearow: I don't see any moral support at Requests for adminship/TheFearow? Giggy  UCP 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me moral support started appearing when there was an epidemic about a year ago of RFAs that would get ridiculous 0/30/0 totals, people just had to keep piling on to an obviously failed RFA, and some people saw that as rude. Those kind of RFAs have thankfully become less common, but you still see moral support generally in situations where people are worried the harshness of the RFA will scare away a good editor. --W.marsh 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Giggy: By that I meant as a synonym for a RfA that had no chance of succeeding. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ideas are infective
When someone gives faulty reasoning to oppose an RfA, I have seen some users saying "I too agree that it is faulty reasoning but why pester the opponent, (especially if it is the only oppose and say, 100 supports). That oppose is not going to hurt anyone." But please note that ideas are infective, more so with bad ideas. If an oppose with faulty reasoning goes unchallenged, who knows how many users new to RfA think it is perfectly acceptable to oppose for silly reasons? To illustrate this, not taking any names, I saw one user's (rather premature) RfA being opposed with a comment "Wicked strong oppose" and later that user went and used that exact wording at some other discussion. (Point here is not that wicked strong oppose was bad wording, but that new users tend to follow what more established users do.) Like User:Carcharoth says above, it is not necessary that a silly oppose should be removed to get the appearance of a 100% support; But we shouldn't just ignore such comments either. - Two  Oars  14:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to your larger point: "wicked" as used above, is simply the Boston, Massachusetts vernacular English for "extremely". Just thought I should put that out there as a proud Bostonian. :-) Hiberniantears 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also should point out that I (editing then as Black Harry) didn't mean to do harm by using "wicked" (as Hibernian mentions, it means very around here). I also should point that I have also given candidates a "Wicked-Strong Support" (though I eventually stopped the practice altogether).   New   England  (C) (H) 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I do not know the various connotations of "wicked"; I know it only in the context of "Snow White had a wicked step-mother". :) I just thought it was bad wording at that point of time. But like I said, I just used that example to illustrate how new users may take up ideas from more established users. - Two  Oars  15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know where you are coming from TwoOars. What concerns me more than anything is that an incorrect Oppose, or for that matter support tends to generate follow on comments. My concern is that a few (not present company of course!) commentators at RFA seem to spend very little if any time actually reviewing all the information provided (e.g. count, contribution history, nom. statement and answers to questions). Instead I have seen people jump on a reason without forming their own opinion. In one RFA I noted that the orginal opposer changed their mind (and !vote) but there were other comments following, based on the original oppose, that were never changed. If a reason is clearly faulty it should be "callenged" in a courteous fashion. Possibly a nominated candidate would have their nominator(s) refute, but I see no reason why the candidate cannot either - indeed the way the candidate handles it sometimes shows positive (or negatives) that may not have come out previously. Pedro | Chat  15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Boston Rules! Sorry. When I see bad reasoning such as "not enough admin experience", I just politely ask what they mean. Perhaps instead of calling people out on bad opposes, we should just ask what they mean. As you said, new users follow what experienced users do, so in doing so, we could teach them good faith.  J- stan  Talk 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Asking for clarification on an unclear reason is fine. Vehemently arguing with an oppose that won't change the outcome is pointless. -Amarkov moo! 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Amarkov is right, but I'll add that it is 8important to remember that everyone is allowed their own reason for opposing an RFA - some people wont reconsider and thats fine. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that vehemently arguing is counterproductive. But my point is, one should question silly / ridiculous opposes not just to try to make the opponent rethink and reconsider. Even if someone has been making the same silly oppose on every rfa for a while, we shouldn't just leave the oppose comment alone, saying "lets leave it. we can't convince him/her anyway." There should be at least one well reasoned rebuttal to such an oppose, so that anyone looks at the RfA realizes that it is not the "norm" to get away with silly opposes unremarked. - Two  Oars  03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When thought out, we should never encounter this problem should everyone consider point three of About Rfa. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 03:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I argue against editcountitis opposes (or even editcountitis supports). When people see many others voting based on editcountitis, it gives the impression that it's a good idea, or that it's only expected for voters to look at the edit count instead of the contributions. Other bad reasons have shown up as fads as well: balance across namespaces, rate of editing, whether they have ever taken a Wikibreak... It's important to question stupid reasons, even if they don't change the outcome.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Questioning and discussing stupid opposes (or, indeed, stupid supports) is good, because a point of view that can't stand up to logical scrutiny is of very little value. However, we should never strike or ignore votes (or !votes, if you prefer) on the basis that they're stupid, only if they are blatant trolling. So a vote like "Oppose, candidate does not have 2000 projectspace edits and 1000 projectspace talk edits, which are my minimum requirements" is pretty stupid, and should be disputed, but should not be stricken. Basically, it's not for the bureaucrat or other members of the community to decide what constitutes a "valid" reason; it's for each individual voter to make their own decision. Otherwise we become a mob-rule dictatorship. WaltonOne 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Walton hits the nail on the head. As I said above I think that a candidate should be able to refute opposes in a civil and fair fashion - sometimes this helps define the character of the candidate better than anything else. If they can provide reasoned and logical answers / arguments (I'm using arguments advisedly) this often demonstrates admin skills that may not be clear otherwise. Equally, an excellent looking candidate who then badgers opposers without reason or become uncvil when opposed may end up failing their RFA because of it, and rightly so. Pedro | Chat  11:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

TomStar's RFA
Anyone else notice that Requests_for_adminship/TomStar81 isn't showing up on tangobot's RFA report?  New  England  (C) (H) 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't it old and done? Andre (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still going, no? the_undertow talk  05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Then whats this? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous RfA. the_undertow talk  06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The current one is Request for adminship/TomStar81 2. — Kurykh  06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is this only 9 days later? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the first one ended with a very public and unnecessary spat between New England and Oldwindybear regarding reciprocal RfA nominations. TomStar decided to start the nom over with a clean slate, I guess, forgetting (or not knowing) that that doesn't really happen. — Kurykh  06:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant Request_for_adminship/TomStar81_2. He was renommed a few days, but I didn't notice it until a few hours ago (its live but not on tangobot's RFA report). I am not planning on participating it, just curious.  New  England  (C) (H) 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You trust a bot, you pay the consequences. Not really, we love you Tangobot!  Giggy  UCP 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* its hangermanbot all over again. -- C h r i s   g 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hagerman bot you mean? :P Giggy  UCP 08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sadly HagermanBot left us due to unknown causes. However a replacement is under way see here. -- C h r i s   g 10:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset) It is probably not showing up because it was not named correctly (Request for adminship vs. Requests for adminship) --After Midnight 0001 10:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin candidates, sockpuppeting and other issues.
Per WP:ANI and User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying it appears that OWB who was recently given adminship was apparently severely sockpuppeting. This is not the first time that such an event has occurred (as people may recall from the Pegasus incident). Furthermore in this case there had been previous concerns that the nominator was a sockpuppet as well as accusations of plagiarism. I'm concerned that neither of these issues came up in the RfA and that he passed at 66/0/1 at Requests for adminship/Oldwindybear. Now, while one might argue that given that we have over 1000 admins the number of problem cases has been very small, but this issue still needs to be discussed. JoshuaZ 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In what manner do you want this discussed? An isolated incident like this is not something to spend endless pages of discussion over. — Kurykh  19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence I noted that this wasn't the first time such an event had occurred. In any event, I'm disturbed that no one who looked at the RfA notice that the nom was a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet evidence is not subtle. JoshuaZ 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people were more interested in examining the nominee rather than the nominator, which is common sense until this thing comes along. — Kurykh  19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I think the sockpuppet evidence was fairly subtle, though the excellent job done by Proabivoauc and Barneca in putting it together obscures that fact a bit. It's also a fairly explosive allegation, and not one to be made without all one's ducks in a row, which may have inhibited people somewhat up front. However, I agree with JoshuaZ that we should think about that RfA a little more. What's concerning to me is that OWB had significant baggage (including prior sockpuppet allegations, heavy content disputes, storming off the project at one point, etc) which was not discussed at all in the RfA. Personally, I think we should look at Q3 a little more closely in the future. Answering this question with extreme vagueness (e.g. "I had some conflicts in the past and learned from them. Next question...") is a potential red flag. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did notice that there were sockpuppetry allegations on OWB, and I intended to ask a question regarding that but I had to go on a wikibreak. Anyway, I think it is a rare case, and quite subtle as MastCell says. No point getting all worked up about it. But this further reinforces the importance of looking through the contributions, not just going through the Wannabekate report and commenting on more X-space edits or edit summary usage. In this case, I found the previous sockpuppetry allegations by just going through OWB's talk page. - Two  Oars  19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an instruction to people at the top pf the comments section. "Do not vote on a candidates sutability unless you have a good knowledge of their behaviour on Wikipedia." along with intructions to the 'crats to ignore votes by people who haven't bothered to look over he contributions list might give people the reminder that they need? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be ideal. I personally do not comment on RfAs for candidates I am unfamiliar with (unless I have sufficient time to examine their contributions, interactions with other editors, etc.).  It would also make the whole process less vote-y.  --Iamunknown 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a very good suggestion. From what I've seen, many people just don't provide evidence that they have read through a nominee's edit count/contributions, which leads one to believe that RfA is a rather corrupt operation. Some folk often avoid a lengthy summary when assessing a user to avoid repetition, but these can be identified by a regular participation on RfA. Some just don't bother, and in some cases, it's clear to see.  Lra drama 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea, but there's already something similar (a warning to familiarize oneself with the contribs before voting), and it's often disregarded, just like our standard warnings about GFDL, not spamming, notability of new articles, etc. Involving the bureaucrats is a good idea, but if someone writes "Support per nom", then it's hard to know: did they exhaustively review the contribs and find themselves in agreement with the nominator? Are they just being lazy? Somewhere in between? I do think this episode points up that we should apply some gentle scrutiny to the nominator as well as the nominee, as that might have raised a red flag sooner. MastCell Talk 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Like after all the Admin account hacking back in May, we will probably see "Optional questions" about disclosure of WP:SSP cases and WP:SPAs for the next little while. The case does highlight a requirement for some legwork before a cursory Support per xx. ~ . Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm....the fact that a sockpuppeteer can pass RFA unanimously, where a well meaning user that helps the project but is rejected because they have too little edits to x, shows how the RFA system is really flawed. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * System, or some people participating in it? I blame the latter more than the former. — Kurykh  21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People are the system. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought "system" referred to technical process itself, not the participants of the process. Or are we just subjecting ourselves to a whirlpool of semantics? — Kurykh  22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that people are the system, that means by defenition the system is, and always will be, fundamentaly flawed. That is not, however, an excuse to reject the system. Merely that we accept the inherent problems and seek to work through them to achieve the aims of this work. This whole sorry affair has left me sadened but at the same time ever more commited to contribute here. Pedro | Chat  22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya, R, that is disappointing. :\  --Iamunknown 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egg... meet face. Hiberniantears 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad this was noticed, but disappointed that we as a community didn't notice sooner. Are there any ways in which we could change things, to avoid this in the future? Aside from the singularly unappealing option of keeping "dirt" pages on people who might someday run, I'm at a bit of a loss. This sort of thing is one reason I like to see evidence of commitment to the project (time and effort invested, whether over a few years or a few months) -- in this case, though, OWB had been editing since 2005, so I can't say whether I'd have been fooled. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)