Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 48

message: Since the policy change requiring nominations be accepted before being posted at WP:RFA,
nominations that have not been accepted have generally been deleted once the nominee 
indicates lack of acceptance. There's no policy or guideline about this though. Today,
I came across Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Terenceong1992, and it's been
added to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. I'd like to see what people's
opinions are on deletion of never accepted nominations. Personally, I don't see the 
point in keeping them around. They are not posted to WP:RFA anymore, and do not 
contain really much in the way of useful information since they never received much
public scrutiny. Thoughts? --Durin 16:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like a redirect someone will almost certainly never type in, they're cheap. They don't hurt to be kept around, and in the very very rare instance that they're required, they can be called up again. (Besides, don't people often look at past RfAs if a nominee has failed before?) Johnleemk | Talk 17:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they could certainly be deleted at the request of the nominee, if not by default.  The problem is that they're catalogued at unsuccessful candidacies by the name of the nominee, when if they are useful information they are only useful about the nominator.  Chick Bowen 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warn the creator, give him a chance to userfy or copy the page (for, say, a future nom) then delete... unless the prospective nominee suggests that they may be ready at some point in the future. I have an RfA I've been holding open for acceptance for a month, and will hold open for ten more if that's what it takes for the editor in question to feel ready. bd2412 T 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Perhaps a distinction should be made between an RFA that hasn't been accepted and one that's explicitly been declined. Chick Bowen 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of never accepted RfAs 

message: We are not voting here, this is very misleading Kim Bruning 13:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! Since september! I haven't been paying attention here, have I? :-( Kim Bruning 13:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, so much for me thinking I've been doing a good job. I mean, drat. Ok, and now I just know I have adminitis. I'm outta here before I do damage. Kim Bruning 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who changed everything here to "vote"? 

message: The entire thing is too subjective and there exists too large a faction that will simply vote oppose no matter what (e.g. user:Radiant).  I think that the entire process to become an admin should be changed so that it's more objective and more than .8% of users can become admins.  Here's how I think it should work:
The user wanting to become an admin presents what he/she feels is his best work on wikipedia and writes about that and why he/she would make a good admin.  He/she then has to get a certain number of "endorsements" from users he or she has come across in the encyclopedia (say 10-15).  After the required number of endorsements is met, other users can sign the comments section regarding their opinion on the candidate.  Finally, the bureaucrats, taking all "evidence" into consideration, have the support/oppose vote themselves.
Infinitely more fair, no? Juppiter 08:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you propose is more similar to how it actually works than you think.  Bureaucrats already have discretion, and there are no hard-and-fast rules for how large a majority is required for them to promote someone—so if a user is being blocked for what seems not to be a good reason, they'll be promoted anyway.  There are already descriptions of what administrative jobs a user would do, and "endorsements" in the form of Support votes.  The only things that are different from what you say are that a) only one Bureaucrat makes the decision, because it would be a waste of time to require several to vote against each other, and b) we really don't need a large number of new admins. -- SCZenz 08:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we were to call these folks "trusted users", which is accurate (and wikinews is thinking of switching to that name) , well, do you really want large numbers of *untrusted* users let loose on the site? Indeed. Kim Bruning 10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd really oppose that term "trusted users".  If anything the term should be made somewhat unflattering, like "bureaucrat" already is.  I think the term "bureaucrat" helps dissuade people from trying to become one for the wrong reasons, and is thus a good thing.  Maybe "admin" could become "janitor" or something.  Phr 14:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that we have a large faction who oppose no matter what. Radiant, who you mention, had pretty strict criteria for supporting, stricter than mine, but he supported several candidates, some of them contentious like Aaron Brenneman and Hermione1980. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there some sense that there's currently an admin shortage?  If there's enough admins now, why look for ways to speed up the process of making more?  Why not slow it down, even?  Is there really .8% now?  That's something like 8000 admins, a pretty big number IMO. Phr 12:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No we are not at 8000 admins, according to Wikipedia:List of administrators we have 824, 683 of which are "active", 93 "semi-active" and 48 "inactive". I believe that the bulk of admin work is carried out by a hundred or so admins. Take a look at RC patrol some time, nonsense does slip through the cracks there, so there at least I think that we are understaffed with admins as it is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard there was about a million users, so .8% would be 8000.  I guess it should say .08%.  RC patrol can be done by anyone (I've done it a little) and doesn't need admins.  Non-admin RC patrollers can put notices at WP:AIV and they get handled pretty fast.  So stuff slipping through RC patrol doesn't indicate lack of admins.  Does anything else?  Phr 14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO, we should just create more 'crats and give them the authority to butt into wheel wars, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer to peer is much better. Calling in 'crats may increase the tension in admin to admin disputes. Far better if they can work it out between each other with the least intervention possible. Two or 3 Joe Average's giving *quality* feedback is better than one 'crat. After new admin are comfortable with the nuts and bolts, they might actively practice dispute resolution. It is a learned skill. FloNight talk  17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be editors, then basic trustee level, then admins. Amin should be strengthened a bit, and reduced in number slightly, or at least have entry tightened. Self-nominations should just go.  --DanielCD 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. While most of our block-worthy vandalism comes from IP addresses, there is a sizeable amount that comes from logged-in users who create accounts just to vandalize. I don't think the community would be served by having fewer people able to perform that essential part of fighting vandalism. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally with ESkog on this. Some vandals have gamed the WP systems so well that they register to indulge in page-move vandalism and image vandalism. Also, if a registered user's account is hacked and the hacker is vandalising, a block is immediately called for. Also, it is a good idea to dig the archives before saying things like "self-noms should go" as it has been discussed in the recent past and the consensus was against dis-allowing self-noms. --Gurubrahma 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be a good idea to take a good look at admins who were selfnoms to see if there's anything whatever less trustworthy or trusted about them. What's the point of having a system where self-nomination is obligatory for bureaucrats and outlawed for admins, other than the pure pleasure of legalism? We should try to trim the rule system down to a tight package instead of encouraging it to sprout into such luxuriance. Extra bishpoints for selfnoms! | talk 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a self-nom, and aside from applying the mischief rule instead of the literal rule, I don't think I'm a rogue admin. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self noms are fine when done by a user who has been here long enough to understand the system. Its the newbies who nom themselves at 150 edits that makes self-noms look bad. So we should strongly urge getting yourself nominated to reduce the later, but ignore self-nom concerns about the former. NoSeptember talk 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This process *really* needs to be changed. 

message: Cross post, please reply at Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship 
I've suggested a notice be placed on the main page that's a "half way" step towards trying out DFA.<reverse psychology>Comments totally unwelcome. </reverse psychology>  brenneman{T}{L}  23:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kicking DfA in the pants 

message: I figured I'd post this here as the template is a little hidden.  In case people weren't aware of it (and as someone adjusted one nomination already to the previous format), the voting subpage layout has changed.  See Template talk:RfA#Reformatted for discussion. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  voting subpage layout 

message: I've removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Minan from the main page, since it was blanked by the candidate (a self-nom) after five oppose votes. I'm not sure what's done these days with aborted requests, so I've brought it up here. android79 19:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really shouldn't be blanked. It should be archived and linked at the unsuccessful nomination page as "withdrawn by candidate." -- Cecropia 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've unblanked it and closed it our properly. --Durin 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request blanked by candidate 

message: My request for adminship is hereby retracted. --NightDragon 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Retracted 

message: Can someone put Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mrs Gastrich up please?? It wont let me add to the list.Mrs Gastrich 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been semi-protected, so users can't sign themselves or others up until they have at least some undertstanding Wikipedia. Unfortunately, with only 4 edits, you really don't stand a chance, which is why you can't edit the list. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the procedure for signing to edit Semi-protected pages? Thanks-- Shyam (T/C) 08:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The system lets you edit once you have been on Wikipedia for at four days. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 08:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it four days or after you're within a certain percentile of users by date joined? — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's four days. The percentile method was dropped when a "user_creation" field was added to the user database. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is also now the threshold for moving pages. -Splashtalk 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: Aaron Brenneman added a paragraph to the RfA intro with a link to Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Nomination cabal. I've reverted his addition because I don't feel that a link to a DfA page, which is currently only proposed and has not gained widespread support, is appropriate at this time. Not only might it confuse people, but DfA is only proposed at this point; linking from it from the RfA main page doesn't seem necessary at this point. Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that we currently have one person nominated for DfA. We probably should publicise this fact on RfA, just to test out the process (instead of endlessly speculating on how effective it might be). Thoughts? Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My only comment is that people keep complaining that the DfA process (which needs to be renamed to RfA 1.2 or something) is untested and incomplete, and then when people want to try it out with someone, it gets blocked. I understand that the process is not necessarily 100% robust yet, but we're a wiki, we do things in progress, and as currently constituted it is a VERY incremental change over the current way we do RfA. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Would that not be terribly confusing, with DfA's different format? Johnleemk | Talk 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, that's vastly more radical and controversial than what Aaron did, since that would involve actually nominating someone using the DfA process. The link that was removed does not do that; it nominates people under the RfA process, and just uses some ideas from DfA to help write the nomination statement. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you referring to, the nomination of a fellow who *wants* to go through DFA, or the addition of the link? Johnleemk | Talk 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I seemed a bit antagonistic earlier, but I don't think this is at all similar to the previous issues, which had to do with making substantive reforms to the RfA process. It's understandable why there would be a reluctance to make changes to an important process without airing them to proper scrutiny. This, on the other hand, is just advertising a service for a new way of jointly writing nomination statements. It doesn't force anything on anybody, it just points to a page that is possibly helpful to people using the RfA process, similar to the links to the standards page or the list of non-admins with high edit counts -- both of which are far more likely to confuse people than this link. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is, many, if not most, people believe that the current system is not broken, and that the DfA system may not be better (personally I think it is worse). I start to think that there is even no need to test the new system, it is clear enough that there is no big community enthusiasm in switching, and I would suggest this reform attempt be scrapped.  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But adding this link isn't a "reform" attempt in the sense that it does nothing to change the current system, which is why I'm mystified that people are treating it as if it involves a change of policy. But it's clear that there is opposition to including the link on this page, so the "nomination cabal" will just have to advertise its services in other ways, I suppose. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, um, gosh.  I'm astounded at the level of opposition to what is about as low-impact a change as it is possible to make.  I've moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination cabal for now, and will re-link on the main page in a couple of minutes with some new text to distance it from the apparently toxic DfA. - brenneman{T}{L}  00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The way this would work now is that interested candidates contemplating an RfA could go through this process first, gathering input and identifying issues, and then the results of this process used to formulate their nomination statement, as they would then go through the rest of the RfA process as is. This seems a great idea to me. Since it's entirely optional, I fail to see how it's ramming anything anywhere, but I may be missing something of course. That said I'll certainly be taking the results of DfAs into account in my evaluation and comment on candidates. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *This DfA process still has a number of shortcomings that have yet to be rectified. To expect people to go through it at this point is premature. --Durin 00:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, which parts of the collaborative nomination process need work?  And it's been pointed out quite explicitly that this is an optional extra.  Complain less,  more. - brenneman{T}{L}  06:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *By complaining, as I have done amply on the DfA discussion page and elsewhere, I have already contributed to assisting forward progress on DfA. Several of you are considerably more wedded to the effort than I am. It's incumbent on you to do something about it. --Durin 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, but what? I've reviewed your comments and I confess, as a bear of very little brain, I'm not totally sure what to do next. I'm at a loss as to why collecting pre-nomination information on a candidate is a bad idea, which is all this proposal is at this point. I am somewhat surprised because usually your commentary is so cogent and lucid it leaves no doubt about how to proceed. (I've said more than once that a RfA nom by you is like a quality certification of the candidate)... ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *As noted, DfA does nothing to address the shortcomings of RfA (whatever they may be). Further, the manner in which DfA is currently constructed is rather likely to lead to revert/edit wars on people's DfAs. I've noted these issues in my comments on the DfA talk page. Primarily, if there is going to be RfA reform, then it needs to address what the problems are with RfA. Right now, it's just a shot in the dark and just as likely to cause harm as not. I'm of the opinion it is actually more likely to cause harm because RfA, if it is broken, isn't significantly broken. Regardless, if DfA is going to actually do good things, then some baseline analysis of problems extant with RfA needs to be done. From that, discussion needs to ensue about what are the core problems with RfA. Then, discussion regarding all possible courses of action to address those core problems. Then, some consensus building on which of those possible courses are the best. DfA, for all the effort that's been put into it, is little more than "Hey, RfA sucks. Isn't this a great idea to replace it?". Well, nobody knows. The DfA supporters are looking for test candidates. That sounds reasonable except you don't have any idea yet what it is that it being tested. I'm quite concerned that the next step DfA is going to take is to run, say, a dozen test candidates and when everything goes smoothly it's going to be trumpeted as a victory. From that it's going to replace RfA and then all hell is going to break loose when we find all sorts of problems with it. RfA is a matured process. Go back through the archives of this very talk page and you can see all manner of 'reform' proposals. The vast majority of them have never come to anything because by and large RfA is a pretty well honed process. Like anything human generated, it has flaws..but it is pretty good. --Durin 02:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: **The majority of these objections don't adress the actual issue to hand.  I'd urge a less adversarial stance, and ask that everyone try to examine the contributions, not the contributor's stance on DfA.  I will thus remove all connections to the DfA process so that perhaps we can discuss this with a bit of clear air.  As to the conjecture that edit wars will occur, we have a well-developed system for dealing with those, and seeing someone breach the three revert electric fence on their own nomination would be a nice indicator to future behavior.  Additionally, this could serve as a filter to self-nominations from very new contributors without them having gone through having ten oppose votes appear and the su-page moved.  If we could hear some discrete and actionable objections to the very limited and unofficial page linked, that would be helpful. - brenneman{T}{L}  03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What would be helpful is to first get an understanding of what is wrong with RfA before building a brand new bureaucracy to replace it. I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face if necessary. As for revert wars, it isn't just about the nominee, it's about everyone who contributes to the development of the narrative. As for forcing out new editors, that would create a defacto (and moving) standard for who is and is not acceptable to be nominated for admin. Every time a suggestion has been made to have minimum standards for nominees as a benchmark policy, it's been shot down. At this point, I don't really care all that much what is wrong or right with DfA. What I am most concerned about is identifying what is wrong with RfA as a first step. That hasn't been done yet in any substantiative way. --Durin 12:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * So I'm taking it that the admin accountability poll's response to your question was not substantiative enough for you? Read the answers, the majority of them (if not an outright consensus due to the way things were worded) support more discussion in RfA, but keeping "voting"/objective ways of defining support, and more reasons for such. Isn't that exactly what DfA as currently constituted tries to address, in a very incremental way? I'm really trying to figure out why both sides seem to be speaking different languages on this question, so forgive me if I seem adversarial, Durin. I don't mean to be. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *re-indentingI've read that. I don't view that as consensus. I also read User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform#What_is_not-so-good_about_the_existing_RFA.3F, and responded to it. I recognize that there's a gulf of understanding between sides on this issue. I too am sorry if I seem adversarial. I readily admit to being impatient on some of the points related to this because of frequent calls for RfA reform without a reasoned process to ascertain what is wrong with RfA and adequately respond to those concerns. --Durin 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is arguing that RfA is seriously screwed up. (At least, I'm not.) Instead, we believe RfA can be improved on. If the changes improve RfA -- even if only marginally -- at least something will have been accomplished. Even if there are only one or two cases where DfA would have a better result than RfA, if there is no downside, overall, DfA is better. I agree that DfA hasn't gotten its details ironed out properly yet, but I think that its basic principle -- that we should gather and collate information about a candidate before voting on him/her -- can't do much, if any, harm. Johnleemk | Talk 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I disagree. --Durin 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: **You disagree that RfA can be improved on, you disagree that people are arguing that RfA is seriously screwed up, or you disagree that there's not much, if any, harm? Or all three? I know you feel you've been through this before, but please be as specific as possible with regards to the current concept being proposed, if you can? -- nae'blis (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Durin, can you help me with this cross-cultural translation over at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Nomination_cabal? I'd appreciate your outside viewpoint, so we're not just navel gazing and going in circles. I hope I never gave the impression that I was claiming WP:AAP gave consensus for change, only impetus and concrete concerns about the process, which you asked for. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of addition

message: I've replaced a version on the main page that is pretty mild.  There does exist some indication on the nomination cabal sub-page itself that this has its roots in DfA, but please tell me that we're not so precious that I have to remove those as well.  They will only be seen by people actually working on the potential nomination, and most of them will be aware of the history anyway. - brenneman{T}{L}  00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way this would work now is that interested candidates contemplating an RfA could go through this process first, gathering input and identifying issues, and then the results of this process used to formulate their nomination statement, as they would then go through the rest of the RfA process as is. This seems a great idea to me. Since it's entirely optional, I fail to see how it's ramming anything anywhere, but I may be missing something of course. That said I'll certainly be taking the results of DfAs into account in my evaluation and comment on candidates. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *This DfA process still has a number of shortcomings that have yet to be rectified. To expect people to go through it at this point is premature. --Durin 00:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, which parts of the collaborative nomination process need work?  And it's been pointed out quite explicitly that this is an optional extra.  Complain less,  more. - brenneman{T}{L}  06:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *By complaining, as I have done amply on the DfA discussion page and elsewhere, I have already contributed to assisting forward progress on DfA. Several of you are considerably more wedded to the effort than I am. It's incumbent on you to do something about it. --Durin 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, but what? I've reviewed your comments and I confess, as a bear of very little brain, I'm not totally sure what to do next. I'm at a loss as to why collecting pre-nomination information on a candidate is a bad idea, which is all this proposal is at this point. I am somewhat surprised because usually your commentary is so cogent and lucid it leaves no doubt about how to proceed. (I've said more than once that a RfA nom by you is like a quality certification of the candidate)... ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *As noted, DfA does nothing to address the shortcomings of RfA (whatever they may be). Further, the manner in which DfA is currently constructed is rather likely to lead to revert/edit wars on people's DfAs. I've noted these issues in my comments on the DfA talk page. Primarily, if there is going to be RfA reform, then it needs to address what the problems are with RfA. Right now, it's just a shot in the dark and just as likely to cause harm as not. I'm of the opinion it is actually more likely to cause harm because RfA, if it is broken, isn't significantly broken. Regardless, if DfA is going to actually do good things, then some baseline analysis of problems extant with RfA needs to be done. From that, discussion needs to ensue about what are the core problems with RfA. Then, discussion regarding all possible courses of action to address those core problems. Then, some consensus building on which of those possible courses are the best. DfA, for all the effort that's been put into it, is little more than "Hey, RfA sucks. Isn't this a great idea to replace it?". Well, nobody knows. The DfA supporters are looking for test candidates. That sounds reasonable except you don't have any idea yet what it is that it being tested. I'm quite concerned that the next step DfA is going to take is to run, say, a dozen test candidates and when everything goes smoothly it's going to be trumpeted as a victory. From that it's going to replace RfA and then all hell is going to break loose when we find all sorts of problems with it. RfA is a matured process. Go back through the archives of this very talk page and you can see all manner of 'reform' proposals. The vast majority of them have never come to anything because by and large RfA is a pretty well honed process. Like anything human generated, it has flaws..but it is pretty good. --Durin 02:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: **The majority of these objections don't adress the actual issue to hand.  I'd urge a less adversarial stance, and ask that everyone try to examine the contributions, not the contributor's stance on DfA.  I will thus remove all connections to the DfA process so that perhaps we can discuss this with a bit of clear air.  As to the conjecture that edit wars will occur, we have a well-developed system for dealing with those, and seeing someone breach the three revert electric fence on their own nomination would be a nice indicator to future behavior.  Additionally, this could serve as a filter to self-nominations from very new contributors without them having gone through having ten oppose votes appear and the su-page moved.  If we could hear some discrete and actionable objections to the very limited and unofficial page linked, that would be helpful. - brenneman{T}{L}  03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What would be helpful is to first get an understanding of what is wrong with RfA before building a brand new bureaucracy to replace it. I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face if necessary. As for revert wars, it isn't just about the nominee, it's about everyone who contributes to the development of the narrative. As for forcing out new editors, that would create a defacto (and moving) standard for who is and is not acceptable to be nominated for admin. Every time a suggestion has been made to have minimum standards for nominees as a benchmark policy, it's been shot down. At this point, I don't really care all that much what is wrong or right with DfA. What I am most concerned about is identifying what is wrong with RfA as a first step. That hasn't been done yet in any substantiative way. --Durin 12:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * So I'm taking it that the admin accountability poll's response to your question was not substantiative enough for you? Read the answers, the majority of them (if not an outright consensus due to the way things were worded) support more discussion in RfA, but keeping "voting"/objective ways of defining support, and more reasons for such. Isn't that exactly what DfA as currently constituted tries to address, in a very incremental way? I'm really trying to figure out why both sides seem to be speaking different languages on this question, so forgive me if I seem adversarial, Durin. I don't mean to be. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *re-indentingI've read that. I don't view that as consensus. I also read User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform#What_is_not-so-good_about_the_existing_RFA.3F, and responded to it. I recognize that there's a gulf of understanding between sides on this issue. I too am sorry if I seem adversarial. I readily admit to being impatient on some of the points related to this because of frequent calls for RfA reform without a reasoned process to ascertain what is wrong with RfA and adequately respond to those concerns. --Durin 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is arguing that RfA is seriously screwed up. (At least, I'm not.) Instead, we believe RfA can be improved on. If the changes improve RfA -- even if only marginally -- at least something will have been accomplished. Even if there are only one or two cases where DfA would have a better result than RfA, if there is no downside, overall, DfA is better. I agree that DfA hasn't gotten its details ironed out properly yet, but I think that its basic principle -- that we should gather and collate information about a candidate before voting on him/her -- can't do much, if any, harm. Johnleemk | Talk 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I disagree. --Durin 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: **You disagree that RfA can be improved on, you disagree that people are arguing that RfA is seriously screwed up, or you disagree that there's not much, if any, harm? Or all three? I know you feel you've been through this before, but please be as specific as possible with regards to the current concept being proposed, if you can? -- nae'blis (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Durin, can you help me with this cross-cultural translation over at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Nomination_cabal? I'd appreciate your outside viewpoint, so we're not just navel gazing and going in circles. I hope I never gave the impression that I was claiming WP:AAP gave consensus for change, only impetus and concrete concerns about the process, which you asked for. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inoffensive version 

message: I deleted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sujithk, which had no actual content--just the user's name and a nowiki'd version of the nomination template.  I don't know what the consensus on this sort of thing is, so I thought I should bring it up here.  Chick Bowen 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are normally kept just so that we have a complete historical record of a candidate. In this case, I can confirm that the RfA was completely empty save for a broken attempt at substing inside nowiki tags. -Splashtalk 21:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, these are kept? --HappyCamper 05:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting aborted RFA attempts 

message: Just so everyone would know, I closed the above RFA due to lack of support. It was a self-nomination by a user that vandalized before and his account was only a few hours old. If you have any complaints about the delisting of this nomination, please let me know. Moe ε 23:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't got a problem...though if it was only "hacking," perhaps he deserves it :-D. JHMM13 (T | C)   07:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be ok. Is not it? --Bhadani 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also in favour of delisting the candidate. -- Shyam (T/C) 21:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ricardo Lagos]]

message: Just so everyone would know, I closed the above RFA due to lack of support. It was a self-nomination by a user that vandalized before and his account was only a few hours old. If you have any complaints about the delisting of this nomination, please let me know. Moe ε 21:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed a nom from a new user, and left a note on his page to explain kindly that he could use a little more time here. I think that should be policy, if not talk to them first to avoid embarrasment. Thoughts? -Mysekurity 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Every time a proposal comes up to have minimum standards for someone to be nominated or self-nominate for RfA, it gets shot down...even if it's something as small as 100 edits and 1 month. --Durin 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *While any such proposal gets shot down, I've never seen the removal of a brand new user (under 100 edits) cause any serious objection from the community. If those of us who watch RfA closely just removed those on the spot, those who are trolling would soon find it isn't as rewarding as it is now. Just leave a nice note on the user's page and then refuse to be baited if that user turns out to be a troll. NoSeptember talk 17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proposals for minimum standards get shot down because I don't think such rules are bound to accomplish anything. New rules always have a price attached to them, and where common sense suffices most of the time I think it is good to leave it at that. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And while we are at it, why not just semi-protect it? --Gurubrahma 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page does get protected on and off, but the trolls just wait for their moment. As to Oleg's comment, just going ahead and removing these names without waiting for a formal rule is "common sense" and is why no one tends to object when it is done. So why don't we just systematically apply common sense instead of try to create a new rule ;-). NoSeptember talk 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ((de-indenting) If it is statistically impossible for someone with 4/50/100 edits to become an admin, doesn't that make it a de facto rule/guideline? Aren't guidelines on WP supposed to be descriptive, rather than proscriptive? I'm genuinely asking, because it seems that if no consensus can ever be reached on a user of that few edits, there's no point in a) feeding the trolls or b) letting the genuine newbies get their feelings hurt. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chaz365]]