Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 65

message: Can someone keep removing my RFA off the main site. It seems a bit communist to me. Removing my page just because they don't support me.-- Bpazolli 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, a speedy revert was much appreciated by all I think, and no stuff left on the page. Many thanks for that. The bot problem is not an issue, that can be tweaked. If you can fix the TOC problem I may come around to supporting, but the extra edit issue is still a problem IMO. I know that many editors forget to update the tally as things stand, but splitting sections out will only make it worse. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reduced number of edit conflicts would be a good thing, but not until a) the bots are notified/fixed, and b) the TOC issue can be worked out (I looked last night and couldn't find it, either). Tallies probably should be managed by the bots when they do their checks, but I don't know how they parse things currently (I assume it's by the actual bullet numbers, since WP:WATCH is frequently more correct than the RfA manual tally). Thanks for cleaning up after yourselves, guys. -- nae'blis 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a fan of using section headers in RFAs, but in the interest of neutrality, I'll make the adjustments to my bot so that section headers could be used.  Probably won't get to it for 24 to 48 hours though.  Dragons flight 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or some sort of syntax near the ===Header=== tags to remove a specific header from the TOC. --james // bornhj (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I discussed this with Rob Church a few months ago here, we can ask the developers to add this feature. NoSeptember 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's good at searching bugzilla? Maybe there's a feature request open already we can all pileon? :) If not, perhaps someone wants to write a new one and give the link here. HOWEVER I think james might be on to something. Off to go read about headers and divs and things... ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You can see an example of what I mean here: User:Tango/RFA_test (I've only done the first RFA on that page). If someone can suggest a better way to format the edit links (so they look like normal section edit links would be good), please feel free to edit that page. --Tango 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, Tango, and clever. Maybe this could be templatised somehow... It achieves the effect nicely, I must say.  There is, I believe, a way to format them differently, but am not sure what it is. ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new version really seems good. Nice work Tango. αChimp laudare 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it can be made into templates, but it's beyond me. I'm not sure how to get the includeonly tags to work correctly with one template inside another. Also, it needs someone that knows how to use the fullurl thing to get the edit links to work correctly on different pages. --Tango 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at this.  It looks exactly like Tango's version once it is substituted once, which is exactly what we want. —Mets501 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like what I wanted it to do, thanks! --Tango 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  will create an edit link in the Mediawiki style.  I note that these hacks all depend on knowing how many sections the page will have, hence using these means agreeing that RFAs shall have only the default sections and no more (or having people update all the links if sections are added).  An alternative might be to javascript away the extra TOC entries in a similar fashion to how the Main Page header is removed.  Dragons flight 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like Tango's proposal with your edit link template (which I renamed from "Template:Phony edit link" to "Template:Edit link" because it sounds better) and my template which I have tested and it works perfectly. I suggest that we should implement it.  What do you all think? —Mets501 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, indeed!  That is quite an ingenious proposal!  I like it a lot!  hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you guys tested the new versions to see if the edit section links work correctly when transcluded on the 2nd, 3rd, etc RFAs on a page? Also, I added a section header to simplify commenting here. -- nae'blis 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've now tested it, and it works perfectly on all RfA's, as long as no extranious headers are added to the RfA. We should contact the bot owners so they can update their bots and we can implement it (I doubt anyone would object because all it does is add functionality, and doesn't expand the TOC.) —Mets501 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the issue with adding extra sections/links, exactly? I wonder, can't the person who added them adjust the section numbers by hand below them to make things work again? Or, would the bots be depending on section numbers? Thanks for helping me understand! ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As presently constituted, I believe this proposal does not require any changes to my bot.  Dragons flight 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did an (unsaved) transclusion test in the main RfA page, and I think we want 4 ==== rather than three though, right? Although I suppose it doesn't matter, using 4 makes the header less "large" and more the size of what you get when you triplequote bold something. I must say... This noinclude trick seems the simplest trick yet... well done. I say let's change the template if there is no objection (maybe it was already, I am using an RfA I genned from teh template yesterday for my testing) ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: ::::Yep, a speedy revert was much appreciated by all I think, and no stuff left on the page. Many thanks for that. The bot problem is not an issue, that can be tweaked. If you can fix the TOC problem I may come around to supporting, but the extra edit issue is still a problem IMO. I know that many editors forget to update the tally as things stand, but splitting sections out will only make it worse. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reduced number of edit conflicts would be a good thing, but not until a) the bots are notified/fixed, and b) the TOC issue can be worked out (I looked last night and couldn't find it, either). Tallies probably should be managed by the bots when they do their checks, but I don't know how they parse things currently (I assume it's by the actual bullet numbers, since WP:WATCH is frequently more correct than the RfA manual tally). Thanks for cleaning up after yourselves, guys. -- nae'blis 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of using section headers in RFAs, but in the interest of neutrality, I'll make the adjustments to my bot so that section headers could be used.  Probably won't get to it for 24 to 48 hours though.  Dragons flight 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or some sort of syntax near the ===Header=== tags to remove a specific header from the TOC. --james // bornhj (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I discussed this with Rob Church a few months ago here, we can ask the developers to add this feature. NoSeptember 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's good at searching bugzilla? Maybe there's a feature request open already we can all pileon? :) If not, perhaps someone wants to write a new one and give the link here. HOWEVER I think james might be on to something. Off to go read about headers and divs and things... ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You can see an example of what I mean here: User:Tango/RFA_test (I've only done the first RFA on that page). If someone can suggest a better way to format the edit links (so they look like normal section edit links would be good), please feel free to edit that page. --Tango 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, Tango, and clever. Maybe this could be templatised somehow... It achieves the effect nicely, I must say.  There is, I believe, a way to format them differently, but am not sure what it is. ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new version really seems good. Nice work Tango. αChimp laudare 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it can be made into templates, but it's beyond me. I'm not sure how to get the includeonly tags to work correctly with one template inside another. Also, it needs someone that knows how to use the fullurl thing to get the edit links to work correctly on different pages. --Tango 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at this.  It looks exactly like Tango's version once it is substituted once, which is exactly what we want. —Mets501 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like what I wanted it to do, thanks! --Tango 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  will create an edit link in the Mediawiki style.  I note that these hacks all depend on knowing how many sections the page will have, hence using these means agreeing that RFAs shall have only the default sections and no more (or having people update all the links if sections are added).  An alternative might be to javascript away the extra TOC entries in a similar fashion to how the Main Page header is removed.  Dragons flight 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like Tango's proposal with your edit link template (which I renamed from "Template:Phony edit link" to "Template:Edit link" because it sounds better) and my template which I have tested and it works perfectly. I suggest that we should implement it.  What do you all think? —Mets501 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, indeed!  That is quite an ingenious proposal!  I like it a lot!  hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you guys tested the new versions to see if the edit section links work correctly when transcluded on the 2nd, 3rd, etc RFAs on a page? Also, I added a section header to simplify commenting here. -- nae'blis 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've now tested it, and it works perfectly on all RfA's, as long as no extranious headers are added to the RfA. We should contact the bot owners so they can update their bots and we can implement it (I doubt anyone would object because all it does is add functionality, and doesn't expand the TOC.) —Mets501 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the issue with adding extra sections/links, exactly? I wonder, can't the person who added them adjust the section numbers by hand below them to make things work again? Or, would the bots be depending on section numbers? Thanks for helping me understand! ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As presently constituted, I believe this proposal does not require any changes to my bot.  Dragons flight 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did an (unsaved) transclusion test in the main RfA page, and I think we want 4 ==== rather than three though, right? Although I suppose it doesn't matter, using 4 makes the header less "large" and more the size of what you get when you triplequote bold something. I must say... This noinclude trick seems the simplest trick yet... well done. I say let's change the template if there is no objection (maybe it was already, I am using an RfA I genned from teh template yesterday for my testing) ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After reversion, plans for custom edit links

message: Is it deliberate or inadvertent that the questions, statistics, etc. are now coming before the "votes"? I cannot see anything indicative of the format change in the history, so it may just be the way the last two nominations were created. If it was a deliberate change, I can see why one would want to put the discussion first, but after the recent "section-break" matter, it might be best to discuss format changes before making them. Agent 86 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. In the interests of maintaining a reliable service I will be thinking about changing my bot to support both types later. However, I would still have liked to see some kind of discussion, as well as a sample test case as mentioned earlier in the discussion above. It's okay to be bold on articles and other, non-bot pages - but the Requests for adminship page is processed by no less than three bots, so please be civil to bot operators and notify them before any significant changes are made. - Tangotango 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There should have been some discussion about it, but I do agree with the format as format. People should read the questions before the comments/votes (some of which refer to the questions). Now if there were some way to make the associated Talk page more used: People should feel free to ask simple or minor questions of the candidate that are in a centralized place for everyone to read, but that aren't major enough, "top-level" enough, or are such that an answer would resolve it rather quickly. It would also all for more questions and general discussion, whereas the present or at least recent format encouraged more straight-up voting and was not suitable for discussion of various sections. So, I think it should be directly, and perhaps Largely, linked in the main text. As of now, someone browsing the top RfA page (rather than the subpages) doesn't see or isn't reminded that there exists that discussion page. —Centrx→talk • 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It was weird to see, but people should actually need to go past the questions (and actually read the responses) to make a decision which should be based on merit, not just one that goes along with the concurring majority. Michael 04:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No matter what the format (and I agree that questions should be before supports/opposes) the bot generated infoboxes should be at or near the bottom since if nothing else they get in the way and are distracting not to mention the fact that people shouldn't be basing votes purely on those stats anyway. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, though they do attest to how much one has actually done on Wikipedia and the various means of involvement. Michael 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the stats for RFA's are definitely a double edged sword, back in the old days people actually had to work to find this information and learnt a bit more about the candidate in the process, now you have the stats at your fingertips and many people vote purely on that without a second thought or a second glance. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At least they still give it a first thought ;-) Stephen B Streater 08:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I should've thought of the bots, sorry.  A few days ago I remembered the old discussion linked above, wondered what had happened to it (recalling general support for the measure), went back to look, saw that there was clear consensus, and so implemented it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What discussion was that? I don't see the link you refer to. --Michael Snow 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack, I could have sworn somebody linked to it.  I gave it in the diff where I made the changes; it's Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 60#Moving around stuff in RfA. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Man, this format looks weird. 1ne 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably looks weird because you're not used to it. ;) I think it's useful, in that it makes people at least scroll past the EULA questions and stats before they jump into X per Y. -- nae'blis 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The job-interview format trending towards safe and "approved" answers to questions has been criticized just like the "vote"-oriented aspect of support/oppose discussions and the reliance on edit-count metrics. So this isn't necessarily an improvement, it's just rearranging the furniture. --Michael Snow 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format change? 

message: I'm not being a moaner here, I'm serious, RfA has turned from a "friendly discussion" into a hate camp. Candidates either get humiliated, or have their egos groomed. Most candidates which aren't landslides, get pulled because they either -
# Get extremely unfairly treated, such as Moe Epsilon's RfA
# Get a pile of Oppose votes all "per Whatshisface" at once
# Receive several pointless votes, such as "no AfD participation", when the nominee is a vandal fighter
# Receive harassing votes because of definite lack of experience
# Realise their RfA is premature
Now, except for the last one, this really shouldn't be allowed to fly on RfA, candidates are starting to pull their hair out. We all know the tag lines, "RfA isn't a big deal", but I think that RfA has moved one step from "tough love", to "how far can we push candidates". Highway Return to Oz... 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your frustrations, but I'm not sure that this is the proper forum to vent.  I suggest revising your header and comments a bit, as a slight change could significantly alter how this discussion unravels.  I imagine you're wishing for a constructive discussion on how better to go about the RfA process, so perhaps word your comments to reflect your desires.  As an aside, if you do wish to vent, I'd be happy to lend an ear on my talk page.  Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. SynergeticMaggot 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully cleaned up. Highway Return to Oz... 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  RfA is the first time most people here get a chance to receive criticism from strangers. It's like going into an exam without knowing the syllabus. And today we're going to test you on... Your contributions to the Help pages. There does seem to be a supply of very good experienced candidates this week though, so some of the newer candidates are getting rejected mostly for being not perfect. Stephen B Streater 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the RfA can be harsh, having seen some very angry/aggressive comments.  People cast votes on a whim in many situations.  Another thing is that with everyone having different criteria, there are problems in regards to various people analyzing and criticizing every detail of your existence of Wikipedia and perhaps tearing apart one minor detail where perhaps you were new and did not know a rule or obviously have poor communication skills since their Wikipedia space edits are not large in number.  Two of the same candidates may be treated entirely differently.  It definitely has the potential to be a bad experience for some, and I agree with you, but what else could be done? Michael 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not the rejection, I'm referring to, its the users that take it a step too far and scare or pester users into pulling their RfA or even leaving the 'pedia. People have too high standards, and when people fall short, then can come down fast and hard. Highway Return to Oz... 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of whats being said is true here. I've noticed alot of inacurate decisions in RfA's. Some are small and petty, while others would make the next user decide to oppose so fast the nom has no chance. See the above header for discussion on what can in fact be done. SynergeticMaggot 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with any experiment that makes the RfA process more lenient is that it's very difficult to desysop an admin. Yes, it does happen in extreme cases, but the process is very time-consuming and almost always causes huge amounts of ill will. Therefore, changing the RfA procedure may well require a change in the desysop procedure. While RfA certainly isn't a perfect system, it does work "well enough" that changing multiple processes isn't a task many would like to undertake. Aren't I Obscure? 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I am of the opinion RfA works well and those that fail do learn something constructive about themselves. My extreme suggestion of every 3000 edit user has the 'right' to be an admin was more an observation of an alternative model. I don't agree with it, but I do think it is possible it would not be the total disaster than some might imagine. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that RfA generally works well and even failures can be useful to candidates. I also think that an experiment such as the one you described might not be a total disaster...at first. However, any system that's set up so that you gain adminship by achieving certain metrics is bound to be abused by trolls/vandals/POV pushers, etc... Aren't I Obscure? 00:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mnade a good point below about the desysop criteria would need to be relaxed.  Initially this would probably be OK but you're right about the trolls.  It would not take them long to realise that they can game the system and bait admins into losing their admin tools.  This would be an unacceptable handicap for admin and a very strong rationale for maintaining the current status guo with respect to RfA nominations. David D. (Talk) 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I stumbled across Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. Who knew? Highway Return to Oz... 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia gets many RfAs from users who just aren't ready for adminship yet. Is having an RfA stressful? Certainly: the potential of having your every edit scrutinized and every bit of dirty laundry dragged into the open is daunting. But a candidate who can't handle the stress of an RfA is, in my opinion, not ready to handle the greater stress of dealing with vandals, blocking users, etc. There is a growing trend of some strange "standards" from people who appear to be unfamiliar with the RfA process (oppose !votes based on strict percentages ("7/24ths"), help space edits, etc). Those just don't make any sense to me, but at the same time, I don't feel the RfA system is failing. I agree with David that it's wrong to give a candidate false hope, or humor a candidate who doesn't exhibit basic admin skills. If the user isn't ready, it's just better to say so, even though it may seem harsh. I've tried to stick  the word "reluctant" in there when I oppose a nom, and give several reasons why; I tend to shy away from "per above" in those cases. I'd rather give reasons so the candidate can improve for the next time. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, it currently is possible to desysop an admin, but this requires intervention of the ArbCom or Jimbo himself. While this system can deal with a few (4-5 a year) rogue admins, it's not very scalable and would collapse if we implemented a scheme such as "all candidates with X edits are made admins." Thus, the desysop process would have to be made more lenient, which has its own problems, such as encouraging trolls to harass admins who block them. Aren't I Obscure? 23:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, a system where "all candidates with X edits are made admins" could be easily gamed. Vandals could amass X edits of any quality and then would get shiny new tools. The possibilities are chilling.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually quite surprising they do not already try to game the system.  How hard is it to act a model user for a while? I hope this is not a case of WP:BEANS. I suppose the reality is that it rarely happens suggesting the vandals don't have the patience. David D. (Talk) 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have some very patient (dedicated?) vandals on WP. I mean the ones who keep coming back, like CapnCrack. I wouldn't put it past these types, though their temptation to vandalize might be be too hard to resist.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jayjg once remarked (roughly, this is from memory) that he could create a new account and spend a half-hour a day on it for six months, and become an admin by a landslide.  This is, I think, quite true, but I'm not aware that anyone's tried it.  freestylefrappe did, but of course he failed.  I think the key would be to make yourself look knowledgeable, be friendly, but remain totally uncontroversial (e.g., avoiding issues of copyright where possible and taking a moderate stance on notability).  However, you would have to know the process quite well to have a chance at pulling this off, whereas a simple standard would be very easy to game. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A similar proposal for piecemeal power assignment was discussed (but is labeled as "rejected" in the archives TOC) here. There are, of course, other failed proposals in the archives and at User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform.--Kchase T 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not trying to suggest giving different powers to different admins. I was suggesting that there are different types of Wikipedians and they do not all have to be measured by the same criteria. --JWSchmidt 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you suggested. They're similar but distinct approaches.--Kchase T 04:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the oppose per above or support per above  point. I wonder if it ought to say on the RFA page - no per above votes, try to give an individual reason... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if a candidate is found to have moved a page or two to "...on wheels", only one person is allowed to use that as grounds for opposing? -- Steel 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no thats not what I meant but rather than saying oppose per userx people should say oppose due to moving pages to "...on wheels". It doesn't take much to type and clarifies exactly what they are opposing - which is kind of useful. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If user x identifies the pagemoves, then it makes absolutely no difference whether people oppose "per user x" or oppose "per pagemoves". -- Steel 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly feel that RfA is not a one size fits all. It is also nearly impossible to change the reasons for which people !vote. As a suggestion, shouldn't we rather insist that candidates/nominees go through the logs of RfA to find out what lies in the future. Also, for those who aren't sure, Editor review should be publicised. Though ER rarely gets the "enemies", issues like low edits in certain namespaces, experience, etc. are handled well in it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about publicising editor review, I added a sentence and link to it in the About RFA section (under Decision Process section where it says you can self nominate). What do you reckon? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A brief look at Wikipedia:Editor review suggests it to be rather useless. Users seem to be recieving very few comments. The user currently at the top of the list seems to be getting laudatory reviews, yet is about to be banned for a year by the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps this sample is distorted but it is not looking like a process that will help people prepare for RfA. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was making an example. I don't see any point to users complaining "nominee has not asked for pages to be protected", when the nominee doesn't wish to do that, and has noted that what they want to do wil help the 'pedia. If you're only trying to promote über admins, who will destroy our backlogs in hours, then your plan isn't working, editors are just leaving because they're sick of jumping through hoops, just to become an admin. But we all know, It's not a big deal. Highway Return to Oz... 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandal-fighting is a necessary activity, and one to which adminship is highly relevant (rollback and block).  Why does it matter whether someone who wants to revert and block vandals has contributed to AFDs?  If they indicate any intent to start closing AFDs, then they had better have contributed, but asking people to participate in all the important Wikipedia processes when they only want admin tools to contribute better to one makes little sense. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't matter if we were just giving them rollback, but we're not, were giving them ALL the admin tools. You need not be a crazy-awesome AfD closer, but I'd (and others) would prefer that you have at least some experience with all or almost all areas, not just one. (edited for spelling, typing while standing does not behoove me.) -Mask  02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The harsher side of RfA 

message: Whose consensus is RFA supposed to represent?
Well, let's look at how we currently determine it.  What we have now is a conventional vote: anyone who stops by can throw in their opinion.  So whose consensus do we gather?  That of RFA regulars, of the nominee's friends, and probably of the nominee's enemies.  Assuming there's significant off-site discussion of Wikipedia matters amongst the wiki-savvy, such as on IRC, and given that people who have had interactions with someone are more likely to notice that person's RFA on RC or wherever, it's safe to say that a very large percentage of those who currently vote in RFA will have preconceptions as to the candidate's worthiness.
Is this good or bad?  At first glance, it would seem good.  Who better to judge a candidate than those who know him?  But actually, I think it's probably not good.  The acquaintances of a candidate surely have better knowledge, but they may also have unusual opinions.  One example of this is, of course, where a candidate has consistently enforced an often-resented policy, such as WP:FU: those who have had their images removed (the minority of active Wikipedians who disagree with the policy) may feel resentful, and as discussed above are probably more likely to see the RFA than others.  Basically, someone's pool of acquaintances may be skewed due to the spheres they walk in.  Likewise, people may hold personal grudges if they were involved in a difference of opinion with a user.  These people are not impartial, but they'll be disproportionately likely to vote in the candidate's RFA.
Now, the current process is not "broken".  That's true.  Most people it lets through are deserving, most people it bars are undeserving (or at least not clearly deserving).  But "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a recipe for perpetual mediocrity.  The current system could use improvement; the mere fact that it works at an acceptable level is not reason to fail to improve it.  Let's not oppose change just because it's change.
So, I would argue that consensus should be the informed opinion of the Wikipedian community as a whole.  Obviously, we can't ask every single Wikipedian what they think of every single admin candidate.  But an interesting possibility comes from jury votes, and the idea of a statistical cross-section.  Select fifty or a hundred people randomly from the community for each candidate.  (A bot could pick them and leave messages on their talk pages linking them to the discussion.)  Have an open discussion for perhaps three days, longer if necessary, where people present diffs and other evidence and discuss the candidate's merits.  Then let those in the jury (who showed up) vote.  If they agree by a margin of 80% that the candidate should get the tools, then they get them.
Of course, many of these people may be inexperienced in RFA.  They might not understand what adminship means exactly.  But I think this could be overcome quite easily: just tell them all when they're selected what powers an admin gets and how difficult it is to remove them.  It's really quite simple, not something that you need any experience to grasp.
Is the scheme overcomplicated?  I really don't think so.  A simple bot running on open-source code could handle all this quite invisibly.  And unlike the present system, it's also completely immune to vote-stacking of any sort.  People with open minds and average opinions will consider the matter, not people who may have preconceived opinions based on personal slights or out-of-date facts.
Of course, the question of how to select the jury remains, but that's more of a detail not important to the main thrust of the scheme.  What are people's thoughts on this? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the system broken?  What percentage of RfA's do objective wikipedians think have been opposed with unfair predjudice? David D. (Talk) 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The system is not broken.  It is merely imperfect. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since it would be bad to block people from raising legitimate concerns, uncivil diffs, etc., comments to that effect would be made and allowed anyway, and the jury members and the closing bureaucrat will see them and they will have a similar effect as they do now; and supporters will object to those objections and bring up countervailing diff's and we have a similar system as we do now. Except, the selection of the jury is the key part. If they are randomly selected, a significant majority will have no idea what an admin does, etc., and many of them will, aside from being new, be uncivil or fringe or otherwise problematic; it is not sufficient to give a paragraph explanation, even if they are all good faith jury members. So we end up with people raising objections about the qualifications of the jury in any particular case. That is—if more than a handful of the randomly selected jury cares to give any careful evaluation, if they do anything at all. I think, if anything, this will result in a less careful evaluation or less discussion. If the current RfA participants were to still review contributions of the candidate in this proposed system, we would then have a situation where the people who know the most about the candidate have their opinions not count, and then the people who just happened to login one day so they can edit their favorite band article don't know the qualifications, haven't reviewed the contributions, and may not even vote reasonably if they had. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think problems with the current system are related lack of thorough discussion. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because RfA is a vote. We're kidding no one. Highway Return to Oz... 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the proposal, keep in mind that not everyone is on every day.  Some may visit once a week-maybe less.  It also doesn't seem right to block some from having the ability to vote. Michael 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the problem of people's schedules, the idea depends on having enough "jurors" feel an obligation to participate. In a volunteer project, that's a dicey proposition to rely on, and the combination makes me skeptical about whether the result would be a reasonably representative body. And that's without getting into the technical challenges of selecting them, which may not be critical to a theoretical discussion, but which are large enough that the theoretical side may not be worth spending much time on. --Michael Snow 22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, current "bottom up" system works best. Wikipedia is a distributed, community based system. For certain very exceptional things, like ArbCom, etc., it is important to have a "top-down" approach. However, for editing articles, voting things for deletion, voting for admin, and others, it is best to let things at the hands of the community (will all the disclaimers of the supposed silliness of the masses, etc.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The technical challenges are negligible.  Anyone familiar with pywikipediabot could probably knock up a bot to do this in a day. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody could easily create a bot to pick a jury pool, no doubt. What I meant by technical challenges was the issue of making the pool random, or otherwise ensuring that the jury is a representative sample of the person's peers. Addressing those problems goes beyond mere skill in programming. --Michael Snow 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Those who only visit once a week will, of course, not be able to participate as often.  There will be an inherent bias toward more active members of the site, but I don't think that's a bad thing: they're the ones who will most likely have to deal with the new admin, after all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You raise a few concerns here.  First, as you say, the jury will not know what an admin does.  As I said: so?  What's there to know?  Be told what they can do, what use giving someone the tools is and what harm it could cause, and you're pretty much set.  You don't have to be an expert in Wikipedia policy to judge admin candidates, any more than you need to be a lawyer to judge a legal case.Second, you suggest that the jury might be uncivil or otherwise fringe.  To that, I think all I need to say is, are contributors to RFA at present really all civil and mainstream?  You'll always have some jerks in the crowd.Third, you suggest that the jury won't review the evidence.  Maybe.  My belief is that given the small number of RFAs, no one of our tens of thousands of active members will be picked often enough for the jury to lose its interest.  I would guess that given editor turnover, a large percentage of people will only ever be picked once.  Put a big notice up saying DO NOT PARTICIPATE IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO SPEND AT LEAST AN HOUR DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING OVER THE COURSE OF A WEEK, and I think the large majority will put more effort into it than most RFA voters currently do.  (How much time do you spend when deciding how to vote on an RFA?  I doubt I've ever spent more than half an hour.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I still like the idea of the juror voting. Juror's can be randomly selected from the pool of people registered for the juror's duty, so to prevent from choosing people, who are not interested. People who edit wikipedia are usually fast learners and it is not that bad if the nominated admin and the people arguing his case will be a little more verbose explaining their arguments to the Jury. After all in the real courts of law the Jury is usually less educated than a typical wikipedian, the instructions are more complex and the results are much more important abakharev 03:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jury cases in courts of law are quite different that this proposal. Courts of law are a negative process. They would be more similar if all it took were a single wiki-juror to deny adminship, in which case we wouldn't get any admins. There are many other dissimilarities too; the analogy doesn't hold. —Centrx→talk • 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it does.  The principle in both cases is this: a random selection of an individual's peers are the most neutral possible group to judge him.  The exact requirements for conviction versus adminship aren't the point of this suggestion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think it's a terrible idea. One of the principles behind the ideal of consensus is "those who are there to make the decision are the right people to make the decision". By saying we need a juried system, we're demolishing a huge chunk of good faith in our editors, and for no proven gain. RFA needs help, probably, but this isn't it. -- nae'blis 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree that that's a part of the ideal of consensus.  Consensus is of the entire community, not just of people who happen to be there.  The people who happen to be there may be better-suited to make the decision . . . or they may be just the opposite.  And as for assuming good faith, that is completely unrelated to assuming beneficial action: I can assume someone is acting in good faith while still saying they should not be allowed to act that way. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Any substantial RfA reform is unlikely, I'd say, because there is a substantial group that views RfA as one of the smoothest-running, most effective processes on the English Wikipedia. This despite the vocal group that believes otherwise. A reform that is, like this one, purely experimental and not modelled on other process that have a history of success, is especially unlikely to find purchase. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if I was the first to propose this, but I've certainly brought it up before.  The current processes at RfA, CfD, AfD, etc. are all "consensus" based, but based on consensus of whoever shows up to participate.  This makes all of these processes extremely subject to manipulation by any organized group.  If we actually want these processes to reflect community-wide "consensus" I don't think there's any real alternative to some sort of random sampling technique.  The "jury" analogy is not really accurate.  It's more like statistical polling.  With sampling techniques, and a small amount of statistics, it's possible to figure out what the +/- percentage is for a given (random) sample size.  A self-selected sample (what we have now) has a +/- of 100% (might be completely wrong).  If we want 80% approval, I think we could get within 2% of this by sampling something like 30 randomly selected users (I am not a statistician, so this number might be extremely inaccurate).  If we allowed users to elect to be part of the population from which a random sample were selected, I think we avoid most of the infrequent participant problems.  I'm not claiming this is necessary, but I think it's quite doable. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrecting a proposal: jury voting 

message: Will there be an opportunity for discussions about administrators at the upcoming Wikimedia conference? Perhaps it might be beneficial to talk about issues surrounding adminship there as well? --HappyCamper 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so, even if only informally. Anyone that wants to buttonhole me, should... ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it would be an opportunity lost if there is no productive discussion about this at the conference... --HappyCamper 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Indeed. Administrator status will become, I think, a focus of greater and greater attention and problems. As the chance of passing an RfA goes down over time (and it is dropping), the frequency of complaints about administrators will rise. The more selective the group, the more negative consequences there will be. --Durin 17:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As the number of administrators in Wikipedia rises and the chance of having a successful RfA (in the first attempt) decreases, ordinary users would demand and expect a high standard of behaviour (as well as edits and vandal fighting) from admins. There should be a productive discussion about this at the conference. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Whether there is or is not, it might behoove us to consider having a discussion about this here, on Wikipedia, and consider the consequences of this shift. --Durin 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, I think I'm going to sit back and wait for another Wikipedian to take the initiative to do that. --HappyCamper 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taking up your offer, it appears there is a growing trend for some users to be excessively harsh and oppose candidates because they have not been involved in a particular issue (e.g. not going to WP:IFD can be construed as lack of knowledge about image and deletion policy), yet they do not consider whether the admin candidate would actually stop down and ask how to do something if he were faced with a particular situation. That's why specialist admins aren't such a bad idea to begin with, and I guess that's something that will get the ball rolling... Titoxd(?!?) 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, my opinion is that admin should at the base knowledge of other tasks.  --Masssiveego 08:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia conference and administrators 

message: This month 1                                                             	Last month                                                               	Six months ago
New RfAs posted:                                                         	78                                                                       	79                                                                       	83
Successful RfAs:                                                         	28 (36%)                                                                 	26 (33%)                                                                 	37 (45%)
Early withdrawn RfAs:                                                    	38 (49%)                                                                 	38 (48%)                                                                 	29 (35%)
Self nominations:                                                        	39 (50%)                                                                 	40 (51%)                                                                 	30 (36%)
Noms with <1000 edits:                                                   	19 (24%)                                                                 	22 (28%)                                                                 	13 (16%)
Average number of votes per successful RfA:                              	91                                                                       	88                                                                       	61
Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...
All RfAs                                                                 	36%                                                                      	33%                                                                      	45%
>1000 edits                                                              	47%                                                                      	45%                                                                      	53%
>2000 edits                                                              	53%                                                                      	49%                                                                      	59%
>3000 edits                                                              	58%                                                                      	54%                                                                      	65%
>4000 edits                                                              	54%                                                                      	50%                                                                      	63%
>5000 edits                                                              	57%                                                                      	47%                                                                      	65%
Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...
>2 months                                                                	38%                                                                      	38%                                                                      	49%
>4 months                                                                	41%                                                                      	39%                                                                      	52%
>6 months                                                                	42%                                                                      	41%                                                                      	54%
Average edit count of successful noms:                                   	6713                                                                     	7039                                                                     	6701
Average edit count of unsuccessful noms:                                 	3157                                                                     	3144                                                                     	2871
1 - July data is preliminary and assumes success of Ambuj.Saxena, Phaedriel, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Crazycomputers, MisfitToys, GHe and failure of SynergeticMaggot.
--Durin 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what's worse, the statistics, or the fact I'm not suprised. Highway Return to Oz... 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprised at what? The one thing that surprises me is that there is a large increase of self noms.  Do most unsuccessful RfA's come from this group? David D. (Talk) 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. In the past, I imagine nominating someone was a nice thing, now nominating 90% of editors is generally tying a noose around their neck. Highway Return to Oz... 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, don't they just show the world collapsing around us? We had better throw RfA in the bin, and begin the weekly hue and cry about it. Are you volunteering for this week? Where did you pull 90% from? -Splash - tk 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, this is my edit 3163, so perhaps I'd better avoid a self-nom ;-) Stephen B Streater 22:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps, yes :) --Durin 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, I'm a statistical anomaly. My self-nom with only 2200 edits passed, although I had been here for 18 months, and only 54 votes were cast in my entire RFA. If you think you're ready, go for it. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you happen to have any stats on the average edit counts and time for self noms vs. non-self noms? Great work, BTW. Aren't I Obscure? 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For your first question, have a look here; and concerning the complaints: do you mean complaints in general, or founded complaints? Lectonar 08:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. both Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship and User:NoSeptember/Desysop can help you track desysopped admins. With complaints, there are so many bogus complaints mixed in with the legitimate ones, we can't quantify it objectively. NoSeptember 10:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could get some general idea by going through the admin user WP:RFCs.  Some may be spurious, but the effort of an RfC suggests that they're largely not "bogus".  Jkelly 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2006 WP:RFA in Review 

message: Would a bureaucrat please close this RFA; it's already 12 hours overdue; the actual time for closure being 5:50, and currently it is 16:30. --May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe there has been a flurry of activity recently. Oh the tension! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have extended this RfA until 16:50 (UTC) on August 4.  In advance, please do not ask for the specific reasons, as those will not be discussed while the RfA is still active.  Thank you.  Redux 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena]] 

message: Hi,
What's the policy regarding completely new user's voting?  I.e. users that haven't contributed on any other Wikipedia page but except for a particular RFA?  User:ManhattanNY has done so on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ambuj.Saxena.  It seems a bit odd that an anonymous user cannot vote, but a brand new user account can (which essentially may be the same thing). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, they ain't votes.  It's a consensus gathering excercise which means that Supports or Opposes from new or anon users are usually given much less weight by the 'crats during their decision making.  Usually consensus is clear, but when it's tight, those new users who provide some explanation for their opinions will no doubt be considered.  A big list of 'votes' should not make the decision, though, as WP is WP:NOT a democracy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I knew this was coming when I used the term vote, but the section on "Voting and expressing opinions" specifically talks about voting ;)  But, my point is, why is an anonymous user specifically bared from voting when a user who has made *zero* other contributions is allowed to vote simply because of the fact they're logged in?  It makes no sense to me.  Either allow anons to vote or allow neither. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A brand new, zero edit user who has registered has made a tiny but significant step towards establishing a reputation in the WP community.  Their opinion may not carry the same weight with the 'crat as someone more established, but it deserves more consideration than one of the faceless hoardes of the anonymous community.  - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to instigate a major policy change, because, well, can't be arsed :)  But, I think my point still stands.  Especially when it's a case of such blatant "just signing up to vote".  Although no doubt the user will now make a contribution to make my point moot! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another consideration is that it is possible to look at the contributions of a named account and guage something about them -- at the very least, you can tell whether it is a new account. With an anon, there is often no telling for sure whether the anon's previous edits were from the same person or whether the same person may be a frequent editor but from a rolling IP. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Duly noted Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be your main priority.  It wouldn't eliminate the vote but give it less credibility. Michael 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, it seems a bit fishy to me if a brand new user's first edit is to an RfA.  How many new users actually know about them for them to be their first edit? Michael 07:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd think hardly any. Personally I just started adding stuff to articles without knowing policy and didn't participate until about my 500th, even though I had already met some admins at maybe the 100 edit stage. Probably not regularly until even the 1500 edits, I didn't care about these things - why I started to, I don't know.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much the same for me.  As time passed, I suppose I became more involved not only in the editing of articles but in other things such as RfA, AfD, and vandal fighting.  When I first started, though, I just edited articles with little knowledge of the rest of Wikipedia. Michael 09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user vote 

message: Just noting, since it was mentioned above on the page, that the kinks that necessitated the edit counter to go offline have been ironed out and it is back online. It can be found at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php. Essjay (Talk) 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting this link. :) Michael 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very sweet, thank you essjay! Themindset 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit counter 

message: At the moment I have two accounts, User:Wilfried Derksen and User:Electionworld. Usually I use the latter, but I am an administrator under the first name. Is there a possibility to transfer the adminship to the latter, so that I can limit myself to using only one useraccount (which is more according to Wikipolicy). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, users will be rather skeptical of the claim; it would likely spark quite a discussion (and no doubt will shortly) of whether doing so is appropriate. Without commenting on such, the first step would be to log in with the admin account and post confirmation of what you have said; until you do that, it will only be speculation that you control both accounts. Users will no doubt speculate on the possibliy of a hacked password, and will discuss extensivly the motivation for having multiple accounts, regardless of the policy involved with doing so. I steward would be needed to desysop the admin account, and given that the possibility of doing this hasn't been discussed before, to my knowledge, users will likely want to discuss extensively whether a transferral of this nature should be allowed. However, all this is really moot until we hear confirmation from User:Electionworld, though I have no doubt whatsoever that a lack of confirmation will do anything to halt a lengthy discussion of the matter. Essjay (Talk) 07:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for clarity, you might want to indent back out, as the double-indention makes it look like you're replying to me, rather than to the initial post. Essjay (Talk) 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've posted on User talk:Electionworld asking for the usual confirmation that two users are the same. Essjay is correct in saying that the community almost always doesn't allow one user to have two admin accounts (the only exception I can think of is User:Danny/User:Dannyisme, and that's a pretty unusual case), and so the old account would have to be desysopped. Also, it's usual to give notice of use of alternate accounts rather than just redirecting: see User:Typochimp or User:Shayl, for example (alternate accounts of User:Alphachimp and User:MiraLuka respectively). Even if all the conditions were satisfied, I'd be happier if there was a discussion at WP:AN or a WP:RFA application that showed the community was happy with the sysopped-account change. The stewards at m:Stewards are likely to be happy to do the desysopping required if a 'crat decides the sysopping change is appropriate. --ais523 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's worth mentioning that several Admin nominations were opposed on the basis of the name - or at least this has been a contributing factor (eg Requests_for_adminship/SynergeticMaggot oppose 23 and Requests_for_adminship/CheNuevara oppose 8). I don't see this being a problem here, but worth mentioning nevertheless. Stephen B Streater 08:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that was a different type of case when credibility was questioned, thus defeating adminship.  I don't think those problems play as much of a role here-just the fact that as an admin., this user will be questioned due to its lack of reputation. Michael 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a reason you have two? Michael 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see. Michael 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be option, if I would be sure that I could change it to Electionworld. Can somebody confirm that to me?. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you simply change username "Wilfried Derksen" to "ElectionworldAdmin" (or something similar)? I would find this better anyway as system operators do login as root (or whatever) only when needed and do their normal work under a non-root account (here under a non-admin account). --Ligulem 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that compatible with the idea of not having two accounts? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not. What's the problem with using two accounts? We also have bot accounts. Some users also use a separate account for their WP:AWB edits. But nevermind, this is Wikipedia :). --Ligulem 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Electionworld. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then after you get a bureaucrat to agree to sysop Electionworld once Wilfred is desysoped, you can request desysopping on Meta. (Or you can get a Steward to do both) NoSeptember 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for transparency: User:Wilfried Derksen has been desysopped and I've sysopped User:Electionworld per the confirmations here and on my talk page. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer of Adminship 

message: In an effort to boost discussion of alternatives to the present RFA mechanism, I have started a WikiProject on adminship.  Membership is open to anyone who supports significant changes to the RFA process.  The purpose of having a WikiProject separate from RFA itself is twofold: one, to focus the conversation on alternatives to RFA rather than on whether RFA should change, and two, to provide a discussion forum that is (a) centralized and (b) not affected by the archivings and unrelated discussions which occur here.  If you support changes to the adminship process, please consider joining.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that excluding users that do not think change is needed is a mistake. As long as users are willing to stay on topic, all users should be encouraged to participate. FloNight talk 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As with other WikiProjects, everyone is welcome to edit.  However, many otherwise promising efforts to make changes at RFA have been shouted down before the proposals had matured; I'm trying to avoid that.  I think that many people who have historically been critical of any attempt to change RFA might be better convinced by a more fully thought-out proposal with due consideration both to common objections and to transitional effects.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps, but excluding those people who tend to think RfA does not need improvement will hamstring your development process by muting those voices best able to characterize opposition to suggested changes. Furthermore, by excluding those people from the discussion, when you do bring a suggestion back here it will suffer a great deal under massive rejective scrutiny, even if responses to common objections are well thought out beforehand. I recommend you invite everyone who wants to be involved to help hammer out a way forward. --Durin 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *And right off the bat, I see problems with the project that fail to address significant issues raised in the objections to WP:DFA. There's a presumption without any evidence gathering that RfA currently fails at (1) selecting the best people for the adminship role and (2) ensuring the enculturation of new admins. I submit that the former assertion is so far without basis (and would be disagreed with by a number of people here) and the latter assertion is not the role of WP:RFA, never has been, and is ill-suited to being such. If you want that, start Wikipedia:Newbie admin training school. One of the biggest objections I raised with DFA was no serious attempt at identifying what is wrong with RfA before attempting to find a way forward. This new project fails in the same way. Though, I do like the goal of identifying the goals of RfA. --Durin 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This should be a proposed policy changed, not a WikiProject.  Wikipedia:WikiProjects says WikiProjects are for articles.  There's a good reason for this--we should have centralized discussion on Admin policy, not a standing committee for arguing about it. -- SCZenz 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SCZenz has a cogent point. Wiki projects are generally for content, although there are probably many examples to the contrary. Themindset 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, there's several issues here: a) There's never enough volunteers as it is an extremely appealing idea ("hey, someone will help me become an admin!!!"); b) How to weed out obviously unacceptable candidates; c) How to make sure the coaching/mentorship does not become focused on the adminship process or unduly glorifies adminship; d) Whether the coach/mentor should be "blamed" for something the candidate did or didn't do, and e) whether that is acceptable or not. Titoxd(?!?) 06:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WPOA|WikiProject on Adminship]] 

message: After adding my RfA by copy/pasting the line in the instructions ({RFA/name etc} line line line line), it seemed that that horizontal line was in the wrong place, below mine where there already was one, and causing a neutral vote for Mr.  ---- for some reason. So I moved it above. But now another RfA is up and again there is no line above the top one. Is there supposed to be? Mine never seemed to show up on the bot til I put one there, and this one isn't now either (maybe a coincidence), but the way the instructions do it, it would seem there wouldn't be one. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a line above the comments, where it is unlikely any new nominee will have the urge to remove it. Hopefully, that doesn't interfere with any of the RfA counters. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are the lines on RfA page supposed to be?