Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 46

message: That's right: homework. If people want the process changed, then I suggest less talk and more action. Your mission, should you prove your insanity^W^W^Wchoose to accept it, is the following:
*Edit User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform with the following guidelines:
**What is good about the existing RFA
**What is not-so-good about the existing RFA
**Different ways of doing RFA; no idea is too stupid (just don't break this rule)
Use the talk page, come up with different ideas. I want to see that page filled with suggestions and your thoughts.
The goal: By the end of this week, I would like to see a rough draft of a modified RFA system. If the community agrees, we will take the new RFA out for a test drive, and then let the community decide on whether or not to keep it.
Good luck. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (le' ZIP!) -ZeroTalk 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea, will do! — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I hate to add a little rain to the parade, but any scheme concoted in one week will be unfit for purpose by virtue of having been concoted in one week flat. We can't very well test-drive it, either: we need either to take it or leave it, otherwise the legitimacy of adminships granted during the car wreck test-drive will be questioned. There is good reason for wanting more talk, not less. Plus there's the fact that RfA is not broken and does not need fixing. -Splashtalk 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the problem? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I agree with Splash as well (I didn't notice his response at first).  Grue  18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a bureaucrat, I think it's broken. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not "broken" per se', just needs a serious overhall, like the Mega Man articles that I work on. Which in fact, I'll shall work on right now. -ZeroTalk 18:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure it's got broken elements, as all of the "popularity contests", revenge-voting, and IRC-influenced decisions will attest to. While I agree that a longer time for consideration might be necessary (and I would hope Linuxbeak would extend if people are still working on a proposal), as long as what comes out is not radically changed (Jimbo appoints admins, bureaucrats start rolling dice and promoting by UserID), there should be no legitimacy problems. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Aaron just call most Wikipedians Morlocks!? Who are the Eloi? Jonathunder 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homework for RFA regulars 

message: I'd be really interested in a link to the analysis that shows that we're not getting more participation on RfA.  I also notice that you're not providing a counterexample to tell us how good things are.  Again, if we don't have a metric, any metric, then random change really isn't a problem.  It's managed to turn us from slime molds into wikipedians, although it's taken a long time.  I again propose that we start with the metric of number of speedies restored.  It's crap, but it's something.  And since you appear to want examples, let's start by comparing the numbers for a member of the CVU recently promoted to say, Splash. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gritty and nitty 

message: Please take a look at this straw poll (emphatically not a policy proposal) to gauge community opinion  on several admin-related matters. Radiant_>|< 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll]]

message: Everybody, please notice this discussion.  Thank you.  Redux 15:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please notice 

message: I know there is talk about drastically changing RfA (whether needed or not remains to be seen), but what about a simple slight modification? What about instead of labeling the sections Support, Oppose, and Neutral, what if we changed the standard template to read, Comments for promotion, Comments against promotion, and Neutral comments (or something like that... could be "Comments for" and "Comments against", just something other than what we use now). I think this would facilitate and generate a better discussion, and cut down on people's cries about strict vote counting. Thoughts? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Then again, I like *anything* that is different than the current system. Discuss and debate, discuss and debate. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even read the headers, I just go on autopilot at that point — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it too....I've always thought that it should be run a little more like an RFC. Views, pro and con...endorsing said views and let a bureaucrat make a judgment. I know that's a little beyond the scope of what you had in mind but it's down the same road I think. Something like this would let the arguments decide and not sheer numbers. There'd still be less people endorsing one "view" and more another but at least it'd be comment based and not support based. For (exaggerated) example there might be 20 people endorsing the view that the nominee is a good guy and 5 people endorsing a view that says the nominee has been blocked 4 times for WP:3RR violations, the minority view would probably be the one that swayed the bureaucrat's judgement. There's some things that would need to be worked out but I'd like to see a live trial. Anyway...another $0.02 Rx StrangeLove 21:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I dislike it. We shouldn't sacrifice clarity for politcorrectness. And one guy writing 500 word "comment against" shouldn't cancel out 20 good-faith contributors saying that that nominee is a good guy. No need to turn a formal procedure into writing contest.  Grue  21:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would one person cancel out twenty? Don't you think the BCrats could see that there was only one person against promotion? It's not based on the number of words written, it would just make things less like a "vote" and more like a discussion. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "politcorrectness"?  I am not sure what I think about any of these RfA reform ideas, but I am absolutely sure that people should not be using political correctness as a bogeyman against the idea of making things less of a vote and more of a discussion.  Jkelly 21:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, terrorists are evil, so let's call them "freedom fighters".  Grue  21:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this to me or JKelly? I'm confused. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where the political correctness thing came into play, I have no idea. I'm lost. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we're discussing the fact that if we stop voting, the terrorists win.  But that's just a guess.  Jkelly 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prisoners Of War have human rights, so let's call them "unlawful combatants". =) JIP | Talk 09:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my point in the exaggerated example I gave above. Rx StrangeLove 22:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I take that you never participiated in VfD discussions. The one who has the most to say is most often wrong.  Grue  07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the relevance of a comment/argument that matters and not how many people line up behind something. And in any case you're the one that brought the 500 word essay up, it's got nothing to do with the point I was making and it never will. I'll ignore the irrelevant VFD remark...oh wait, it's AFD now isn't it ;) Rx StrangeLove 08:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going forth, I just want everyone to remember civility. I'm not going to link it, because I trust everyone commenting here has read that guideline. 8^)  Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My apologies if I came off snippy :( Rx StrangeLove 03:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about "voting" 

message: If you're discussing a vote in the support or oppose section directly under the vote, remember to put # before any colons (:) you use so as not to break the numbering. Thanks,--Alhutch 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: Ok this is probably one of the biggest issues on Wikipedia that people may not realize. There has been RFA's as of late that have hade great support but for users that have been here for 1-2 months and that have a great number of edits but in nothing but vandalism reverts. I propose, per voting if nessecary, that there be a guideline to when a RFA can be put up. Something like:
----
# The nominee must have been here for, at the minimum, 3 months to have a nomination. 
# The nominee must not have a recent "record". Meaning, they can't have any blocks recorded in thier block log in recent memory. 
# The nominee must have, at the minimum, 2,000 edits to to have a nomination.
# Thier contribution's can not all (meaning about 90%) be reverts of vandalism which can be checked using Interiot's Contribution tree edit counter.
# They must have a clear knowledge of Wikipedia policy before they can nominate themselves/be nominated.  
----
I think we should make a set of rules like that to make Adminship not so obtainable. I especially think the one about vandalism reverting edits only is important because anyone can revert vandalism. It's having a working knowledge about what the WP policies are is what's important. I know adminship is "no big thing" but passing it out like candy isn't acceptible either. — Moe ε 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's anti-wiki and m:instruction creep, in my opinion. Also, "This should be no big deal." (By the way, adminship standards have been on the rise.) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why raise standards at this point??? Are there bad users being promoted??? --LV (Dark Mark) 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I'm not anti-wiki. That's why I'm trying to help out. I hardly think it's instruction creep either. It's not to many things to keep up with considering how many RFA's are up at a time. It wouldn't be to long to figure out if someone is eligible for an RFA or not. I know it "should be no big deal" but giving it out to every person doesn't help. Also, I don't think that anyone "bad" was promoted but just way to early. It's better for users to wait until they are clear of the Wikipedia policies before they are handed the mop and bucket. — Moe ε 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not 'bad' users, but users who, I have concluded, were pretty clueless about some pretty important aspects of adminning. Presumably a tenure longer than 6-8 weeks would have helped with that. I've decided to harden my personal standards to making 3 months a pretty 'bright line'. -Splashtalk 02:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my idea. Just hardening some of the standards. It's just users with 1-2 months experiance have been nominated for RFA with little to no oppostion. Not saying that there wasn't any oppostion but there was more support than oppose. I don't think there's any harm for users to wait 2-3 more months to have admin tools. — Moe ε 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with 3 or even four months for personal standard. Strongly opposed to making this an official rule. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Although I have never supported someone who has not been here 3 months or above, I feel that this is a personal opinion, and thus should not be an official policy fo Wikipedia. Olorin28 03:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Four months is my "bright line", however interwiki years count as well, although I do expect at least a two months at English.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I didn't clearly define recent memory but when I said recent memory I meant like a week. Like, if a user was just blocked a week/a week and a half ago for 3RR that wouldn't exactly help in an RFA they would be starting. So we might suggest waiting for a bit for things to cool down around the topic or conflict they were around and then put up their RFA. — Moe ε 03:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lowering of RFA standards

message: With the closing of CS,CWEM's RFA, closing bureaucrat Cecropia noted "no consensus" (77% support over oppose). BorgHunter and myself referenced Luigi30's third RFA, which passed (72% support over oppose). Cecropia then said that Luigi30's promotion "was a clear error by a new Bcrat". I'm sorry for bringing this back up, but what EXACTLY was this error, and why has Luigi30 then retained his powers? Because it would be bad faith to revoke them? NSLE (T+C) 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has Luigi30 done something to show he deserves his powers to be removed? If not, does it really matter now? --LV (Dark Mark) 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if he hasn't, I'd like to know exactly what error was made. NSLE (T+C) 03:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems the error was a mistake in determining our meaning of "consensus." Obviously, this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time, so it follows that we take it on a case-by-case basis. Since nothing seems to have come out of this case, the only time we should ever really worry about it is if the mistake is made in the future. JHMM13 (T | C)   04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Answer: The error was brought about in two steps, as these thigs often do. One Bcrat was "fixing up" the instructions to promote on the Bcrat page. In so doing, he erroneously stated the usual area of discretion was 70% to 80%. The low number should have been 75%. This was the first mistake. The second was when another, new, bureaucrat probably depended on this to promote Luigi at 72%+. You can see the harm of an innocent error in that Luigi is now being quoted as a precedent. I see no reason to reverse it at this point since (AFAIK) there was no objection made at the time and the damage done by a fight to try to reverse the decision would probably be more harmful than letting stand, absent an indeication that Luigi was abusing admin powers. -- Cecropia 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing it up. NSLE (T+C) 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a significant amount of neutral votes as well, and, if included with the other votes, brings the total tally to 173.  While the support:oppose ratio was 77%, the support:total ratio was only 68%.  I'm not sure if that had any bearing in Cecropia's decision, though. --tomf688{talk} 04:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was still a consensus to promote in this case due to the 77% support and the only reason anyone could give to oppose was agecountitis. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 23:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to bring this back up 

message: I want to renominate User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me for adminship, because it looks like he's a really excellent user. But his first RfA closed only a week ago. How much longer should I wait? JIP | Talk 11:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CSCWEM has asked to postpone any renom until April. See . Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's honor that...it is simply too soon.--MONGO 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait one month. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's really a great user, just that people oppose due to the short time he spent here. Let's respect his decision and don't go against it. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wait too long, the clown may already have eaten him. But you could always nominate the clown. -- Cecropia 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know we tolerate evil aliens, homocidal canines, criminal clergy and even sysops that eat babies, but I really must draw the line at man-eating clowns.  No sir, no man-eating clowns will get my vote.  Dragons flight 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't let the clowns go hungry! --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose until username is chosen that doesn't elicit terrifying childhood recollections. Marskell 16:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like a balloon? We have them, all colors, and they float. -- Cecropia 16:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you're down here, you'll float too... TigerShark 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We do have a user account for It, but there are no edits.-gadfium 20:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose All usernames taken from 5-year-old Hot Topic T-shirts (I keed, I keed) --W.marsh 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I honestly think the name is hilarious. My personal favorite, however, is Can't Think of a Good Name. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it seems nobody finds the name offensive then. Good. -- Ec5618 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to say that this thread is starting to look fairly symmetrical. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ya, like YOUR username is normal, Voldy...  (just doing my bit for symmetry) ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How about stopping this thread when we reach the left border? - Liberatore(T) 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We are getting closer. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I ain't gonna be the one who ends it... but the next person might. This is one of the oddest things I think I've seen on WP. Sooo weird. Why are we doing this? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause... It's the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends.  Some people started typing it, not knowing what it was...  Dragons flight 19:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't sleep, clown will eat me