Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Proposal of August 31 2010

It's been said that we are not creating enough ne administrators. The purpose of this proposal is to make RfA's easier to pass.

All this done is change the instructions (or guidance, if you prefer) given to the bureaucrats. The only purpose is to change the percentages. (The additions of the word "should" are only to cause the sentence to be prescriptive rather than descriptive (and therefore false, at this time). They are not important.) Herostratus (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose reject the problem, but even presuming the problem statement is accurate for the sake of argument, the solution is not to get more crappy administrators, who create more drama and don't actually help backlogs. Unfortunately, RfA is the only tool we have to weed out crappy administrators.  The assertion that RfA is broken is irrelevant, because this doesn't do anything to fix RfA, it just lowers the threshold. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's not a bad idea, but unless and until we have a community-driven method for removing admin rights, lowering the support percentage required is not a good idea. → ROUX   ₪  21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What they said. ↑  – iride scent  21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per this research by RL0919, who notes the minute difference such a change would make. In fact, I expect that should such a change be implemented, many editors would be harsher on candidates.  Aiken   &#9835;   21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * un no. Should should never be used in discussing consensologies... too prone to manipulation/abuse.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would only support if "consensus-building" commentary charade was eliminated, and that ain't happening. Townlake (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Let's stop the lie that it's not a vote. It is a vote, just one that requires a form of supermajority. → ROUX  ₪  01:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose lowering the threshold without first putting in place some sort of admin recall. Useight (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NO NO NO NO NO Access Denied 05:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did we not just have a few people come through RFA? It's not impossible. I don't think we work by percentages anyway. Roux above also has a good point. f o x  07:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose only a few candidates will fall into this range, and it is better to have a strong consensus. We could do without those that 40-30% of people do not want as administrators as this is getting close to controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support A small step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the improved mood currently enjoyed at RfA, due to the WSC's  Signpost article and the unusually accurate crat assessment of oppose rationals at  RfAs such as GorillaWarfare's,  means folk will currently see less need for this change.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And what would the right direction be? 1% support is enough to get the bit? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving the discretionary range to 45 - 55% would be sufficient. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you list three RfAs anywhere in that range where you think the candidate should have been promoted? (For the sake of this discussion, let's agree that the discussion would go exactly the same if the proposed guideline were in place; I realize that almost certainly wouldn't be the case.) Frank  |  talk  13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - I think lowering the passing threshold would be a step in the right direction - if nothing else, it might make !voters take more time to think about their !votes. But 60% as a minimum seems too low to me - a candidate with that little support probably shouldn't be an admin. I'd say the minimum to pass should be 67%, and the 'crat discretion range' between there and 75% - a dropping of the threshold by about 5% rather than the 10% of this proposal. Robofish (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We've had recent RfA's pass at 68% that I know of, they are always controversial, but some 'crats have had the courage to pass them there... we've also had some fail when support has been as high as 75%. Again, fairly controversial when RfA's fail and they are above the 70% line.  But I would oppose any change to RfA that should fail/pass based solely upon the numbers.  Yeah, the numbers do matter, a consensusology is first measured by numbers, but I think rationales should be considered as well as strength of conviction.  An RfA with 70% supports, where all of the supports are "Strong Supports" while all of the opposes are "Weak Opposes" should be more likely to pass than an RfA with 75% supports where all of the supports are "Weak Supports" and all of the opposes are "Strong Opposes."--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)  IMO, the current range for discretionary action seems to be between about 65-75%, but for every 2% points away from 70% it seems like you are moving a standard deviation away from pass/fail.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not without admin recall.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel that if you lower the %age at which an RfA should pass, rather than increasing the number of new admins, the rate may actually fall - people will think that the standards are too low, and be more inclined to oppose, in my opinion (for the record, I wouldn't be one of those). I think that having 70% as the basic "pass mark" is a good level, as it means that more than 2/3 of those !voting (and almost 3/4) were supporting - a clear majority. 60% seems a bit too low - it's less than 2/3 (and nearly 1/2) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I fully reject the problem statement ("not enough admins") and see no need for this change. Frank  |  talk  21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. While 60% is a bit low for me, I'd say a 2/3 majority (66%) would be the end of the discretion zone. There to about 73% I don't seehow this would make opposes stronger than they are now. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose (weakly) Although I genuinely want RfA to be easier to pass I don't think introducing more uncertainty (the "shoulds") into the process is beneficial. The current wording is clear and unambiguous and helps the 'crats make their decision with more confidence. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have yet to be convinced that lowering the threshold would, ipso facto, make RfAs easier to pass, or that the current threshold is a problem. Rje (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason it is circa 75% is that a relatively small proportion of supporters expand upon their reasons, which is illogical if they have scruntinised the candidate just as much as opposers. If every single support was expected to be justified to the same extent as every single oppose (or be discounted in the same way that unexpanded opposes are), a figure of 60-66% would then become more acceptable. --WFC-- 10:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose RfA is not broken. We have plenty of nominees who receive complete and near complete consensus. There is no need to lower the threshold. If we are heading for an admin crisis, in which we have too few active admins to keep up with the growing immensity of Wikipedia, the RfA process is low on my list of reasons why. Kingturtle (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This will not fix the problems with RFA. Rje says it succinctly. It could be counter productive if the goal is to make RFA easier to pass, as it could make opposition more energetic. The RFA Cabal has higher standards than before. One can debate at length on this issue, but in the end, lowering the threshold does not address the problem. If the supporters want a higher percentage of passes, they need to be more persuasive in the their support arguments and do a better job of allaying the concerns of the opposition. Dloh  cierekim  18:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if RfA needs some improvement, this isn't it. RL0919 and Aiken have already made the point that this would only have had any impact on two recent RfAs. I also agree with Dloh above. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No reason to make tenure-for-life any easier than it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose We'd have a lot more new shit administrators on our hands if we lowered RFA standards any further. Vodello (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doing this doesn't solve any perceived problem; there would need to be mandatory agreement to recall, and I don't see how this will add more admins. Crats know what the threshold is; they are smart and know how to determine consensus. If people make good arguments on the opposition and there are less than about 70% supporting (and weak supporting), then there wouldn't be a clear consensus, right?  — fetch ·  comms   12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I cannot see myself working as an admin without the community's confidence. Sorry. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I moved the above comment from the main page. Original edit here. Useight (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sure why we are apparently in such desperate straits for administrators that we need to lower our standard of inclusion. A more useful proposal might be one whereby invalid support/oppose arguments are noted next to their !votes, such as the the many you see that seem to assume the tools are an exclusive club. (WP:NONEED, anyone?) — Chromancer  talk/cont 06:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Blanchardb said, I want the community to trust me. 80% is a comfertable barrier. I'd support lowering the support bar a tad, say, 3%, but no more. Buggie111 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Me too aa per this. With the exception of one controversial closure in August (that I  know of), most recent passes have been clear cut, proving that  the bar is easily accessible for the right  candidates. The real  issues nowadays are ones of changing  the RfA format to encourage editors to come forward, and desysopability- but those are  very  different  discussions, and, IMHO,  the ones we should be having.--Kudpung (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)