Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 88

message: I realize that this is only one data point, but so far I must say I can't see that the mixing of support and oppose comments has made people discuss more and vote less. In fact, the individual oppose opinions stand out less, and do not receive all that much discussion. I also do not see how this format has anything to do with the problem that we do not promote enough admins per week, or indeed which problem of RfA it tries to solve (other than ideological "voting is evil" stuff). Kusma (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solving or not solving problems 

message: <nostalgia>This is how I got promoted to admin too</nostalgia> --Kim Bruning 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if the refactored approach was adopted, and we experience WP:100 on a regular basis these days, does that mean we would need more 'crats because their job of promoting potential candidates would require a lot more work?  The Rambling Man 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessarily. Unless until now all the bureaucrats have been doing is looking at the counts and promoting accordingly.  In which case we're in deeper shit than I thought. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *The recent track record seems to suggest bureaucrats have, for the most part, been looking strictly at numbers. --Durin 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sorry, your RfA didn't succeed because support was only 50%" goes down a lot easier than "Sorry, your RfA didn't succeed because I found your supporters unconvincing." You can't argue with numbers, but without them people are going to want more detail on why they failed. So crats will either need to spend more time giving in-depth explanations, or we'll start seeing requests for some sort of appeals process in the near future. Which will mean another separate page of endless reviews, and more crats to close those discussions. Hooray bureaucracy! ;) Kafziel Talk 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Ah! Hey great then, let's go to a strict voting based system. Can't overload the bureaucrats. :) --Durin 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be okay with that. Very few of the free world's government officials are elected by consensus, and somehow we've managed thus far. But I'd also be okay with leaving it the way it is (shooting for consensus, but having numbers to support the decisions) and I'd also be okay with having some more bureaucrats to deal with the additional red tape that will come with an appeals process. I'm flexible. Kafziel Talk 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer a strict vote, too. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe that the encyclopedia will benefit from this change? Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. Haukur 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I do, that's the only reason for me to state that opinion. You may want to read my proposal at /Reform#Proposal by Kncyu38. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How and why? --Kim Bruning 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? Well, read my proposal. It's a proposal, you're most welcome to comment on it. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good point Kafziel, but the desire for (some level of) predictability can still be accommodated within a more flexible system. You just need a principled method for deciding when to depart from a standard or garden weight-of-numbers analysis. I've suggested here, for example, that in the context of AfDs, weight of arguments grounded in policies like BLP or NPOV can often displace weight of numbers. It's a little tougher to apply that idea to RfA, but we could easily develop a handful of broad principles that would act in the same way to give more or less weight to arguments. --bainer (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The advantage of a criteria-based approach to adminship would be that we could edit wardiscuss about these criteria in general, instead of punishing individual candidates who don't meet disputed criteria. The disadvantage is that some problems are hard to quantify as "criteria": Some editors try to please everyone and pass all "criteria", but partly for that reason won't make good admins... Kusma (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nostalgia trips 

message: The next step is to ween editors off these pseudo-vote tags such as support.  Whether you support or oppose isn't as important as your rationale. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deeper shit than I thought indeed.  Perhaps the 'crats could be encouraged to make comment on their rationale for using the community rationale?  Or is it easier to divide oppose by support+oppose and if the answer is around 75% then job done?  The Rambling Man 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's best to steer away from changing other users' comments with the possible exception of removing blatant personal attacks or WP:BLP violations. -- Black Falcon 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So, we're going to remove the tally counters, mix up the support, oppose and neutral sections and deny contributors the ability to say either of those three words in their contributions?  That would make each application an impenetrable mass of opinions that Bureaucrats would have to wade through in order to analyse and determine consensus.  Not only the Bureaucrat, but each interested contributor and the applicant would also have to perform their own analyses in order to see that due process was carried out and that the consensus was correctly determined.  I think that this would vastly over-complicate the system.  Have people looked at long XfD discussions, which do appear in this format, and attempted to determine the balance of opinion and to see if one contributor has made a particularly compelling argument?  It's a hard thing to do and opinionated contributors are always ready to call out the closer of such an XfD if the decision runs counter to their wishes.  I feel that a reform that increases the signal-to-noise ratio on RfAs would be a step backwards.  A Bureaucrat doesn't have to rely upon the tallies and clear divisions of the RfA/ RfB templates when closing and determining consensus but they are useful to show the trend of the discussions and any discrepancies between the final tallies and decision. (aeropagitica) 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The next step

message: Is it possible for anyone who isn't an admin to RFB? Or is this only reserved for admins? Simply south 17:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that there is no technical restriction against that, but in practice, RfB for a non-admin, no matter how long contributing, would be completely impossible to pass. -Amarkov moo! 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Each RfB candidate is expected to adhere the highest standards in order to be trusted with such tools. Being an administrator beforehand is very improtant. Michaelas10 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that in Mediawiki the user rights for a bureaucrat are a superset of an admin's. Therefore, a bureaucrat has all the permissons of an admin plus a few more. An RfB for a non-admin would essentially be a combined RfA/RfB. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. ChazBeckett 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certain. A burocrat hasn't automatically admin rights in mediawiki. Snowolf (talk) CON COI -  18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Depending on how the software is configured, adding +bcrat might be essentially adding +sysop, but if it's configured the way most people do it (which I would expect), then it would only add access to Special:Renameuser and Special:Makesysop, not adding the other permissions. ^demon[omg plz] 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible to have a Bureaucrat that is not a sysop, but a Steward would have to promote, Bureaucrat's can promote user -> admin : admin -> crat : user -> admin/crat, nothing else. Crats don't automatically have admin rights, at least by default. Prodego talk 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In MediaWiki (on a different wiki using the default setup) I was able to give a regular user the bcrat flag w/o having sysop flag. This user was then able to give themselves the sysop flag. This would make me assume the same is true on Wikipedia since I dont think the devs have really changed much in the way of how flags are applied (just merely created more flags).  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But that is the point, it is possible, but it is very unlikely that they will pass. Cbrown1023 talk 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone who could pass an RfB could pass an RfA. Anyone running for RfB who is not an admin first would only be making some sort of vapid political statement. —Centrx→talk • 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a trivial but possibly interesting point, on another wiki I made for myself, I made my main account a bureaucrat without making myself a sysop, not realizing it wasn't automatic. Go figure. So, assuming WP's is the same way, that's the technical answer. Not that it has any impact on the way it works in practice. Heimstern Läufer 17:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the question has been answered.  It is technically possible to give an account Bureaucrat access without giving it admin access as well, but only a Steward can do that.  Bureaucrats cannot promote like this.  We can only set Bureaucrat rights only if the account already has admin access, otherwise it would result in a "double promotion".  That is because the Makesysop tool for local Bureaucrats was created as a simplified version of the Makesysop tool for Stewards.  It would be possible to conjecture that the configuration of the tool would indicate that it was never intended for anyone to be made a local Bureaucrat without having adminstrator access first, but that's just speculation.  The bottom line is that policy does not require that only admins can request Bureaucrat access, but from the practical point of view, it is indeed unlikely that the community would ever bestow this access level, which is widely considered a more sensitive set of responsibilities — but mainly due to the technical ability to grant admin access to any other account — to anyone that thus far hasn't been trusted with any kind of restricted tools.  Redux 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the case of a retired admin? --Kim Bruning 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instant ratification, obviously! (if their first name has a K or an M or an I, at least!) El_C 20:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would the retired admin not get back admin tools first? What is the point of not having admin tools? They don't put the person into some special existential class where he would suddenly have a "conflict of interest" with the tools, and no conflict of interest without them. —Centrx→talk • 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because not everybody wants admin tools. -Amarkov moo! 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? You are perfectly free to not use them, and I don't see why you would not want to be helpful if you come across some attack page on Special:Randompage or rampant vandalism on an article, by deleting or protecting. Having admin tools does not create an obligation to start clearing backlogs. Usually the reason cited for people not wanting admin tools is they don't want to go through the onerous process of RfA, but an RfB would be no less onerous. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe they just want to limit themsleves to those particular functions; I really see no reason for any restrictions for them. El_C 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point though? If you happen to come across some vandalizing IP, why create additional work by reporting it somewhere and then waiting for the IP to get blocked while he continues vandalizing? —Centrx→talk • 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I admire some of the ideas of Cincinnatus (though not his ideas on plebs, I don't think). People should only take on those responsibilities they intend to fulfill right now, and release any others. This also allows one to avoid David Gerard's law, by only maintaining a small subset of duties. --Kim Bruning 20:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for Bureacratship 

message: I have noticed that someone (I do not know who) removed the vote counters on the RfAs of TonyTheTiger and Byrlcreem2. If this was done with the consensus of the community, then I guess I am worring about something that I should not worry about. However, I appear to not see anything that would suggest that anyone was allowed to do this. Just letting people know about something I noticed. Captain panda 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were created when the template did not have vote counters. -Amarkov moo! 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for clearing that up! Captain panda 20:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Endorse.  Ben Aveling 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What I object to is the idea that this kind of obfuscation really changes anything... RFAs will still be closed the exact same way, which is usually based on the numbers. All things like this do is give people a false sense that things have changed, just because we've obscured some of the evidence. --W.marsh 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I strongly agree with W.marsh. Moreover, I know that people promoting change have the best of intentions so I don't want to criticize them too much but I do believe that making the changes and then arguing that anybody questioning the changes is opposed to evolution towards "what's right" is the wrong way to go about the whole thing. The whole debate around Danny's promotion has instilled a false sense of urgency into RfA reform that's not going to help us make good choices. I have already been very critical of the Moralis experiment (and, at the risk of repeating myself, this has nothing to do with my evaluation of Moralis as a potential admin) and however frustrating the slow nature of change on Wikipedia might be, it's something we have to deal with. There's an irony here: while the proponents of the changes feel they are moving RfA towards more productive discussion and less vote count, they are trying to impose them without proper discussion. Pascal.Tesson 02:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The tallies are not necessary, but removing them solves little. Yes, it does make it so people can't just vote with the crowd, but it's still a vote, and will still be closed as such. You have to attack the problem to solve it, not just the obvious evidence that it exists. -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I do not doubt that weight of numbers plays a part in any determination of consensus, and I don't pretend that removing tallies will change how bureaucrats close RfAs. But if you concede that it will make it less likely that people will simply vote with the crowd, and use their brains when approaching an RfA, then what is the problem in removing the tallies? That's all I'm setting out to achieve. --bainer (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. Note however that you've been reverted three times by three different people in the last couple of days. Perhaps you could give  a break for the time being, or try to talk things out more. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the changes were undone by people who were concerned that it hadn't been discussed enough. Several discussions ensued, in which only Everyking disagreed and he didn't provide a reason. Many other users responded positively. I then repeated the change, but it was again undone some days later, by someone actually offering a reason (convenience) and so I've discussed it again. --bainer (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that if we want to stop people from voting with the crowd, we should stop asking people for their oppose rationale. I haven't seen pile-on voting occur that didn't use other people's rationale, so it might well be that the "discussing" is as harmful as the "voting" bit. Oh, and ceterum censeo we need to redefine "consensus" to be 66% so more people pass RfA. Kusma (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not really into trying to regulate how people make decisions... e.g. make trying to make the masses use their brains. Actually that seems like an assumption of bad faith to call them mindless, but whatever. I mean we can do all kinds of silly tricks to supposedly discourage people from being mindless, like require !votes to be delivered in riddles or use a minimum of 150 words and all kinds of silly stuff... but it is just window dressing and like I've said, fools people into thinking something has changed, when nothing has changed, or things were just made more confusing and less accessable. So I continue to oppose these non-solutions. --W.marsh 13:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just came in on this discussion & have had a similar one with bainer on his talk page. I suggest a simple solution - Why don't we have a straw poll? We had one for changing the Main page & this obviously involves a lot of people. There's lots of arguments on both sides, so I don't see why we can't settle this once & for all in a legitimate & obvious solution to this argument? Thoguhts? Spawn Man 08:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh no not again. You don't use straw polls in this situation. (Both the guideline/policy/tag of the day pages (both pro and con) explain that that's a bad idea.). I mean fine. Learn things the hard way once, but isn't this about the umpteenth time? And it hurts everyone else who already *has* learned their lesson too. :-/ So No. I'm not that much of a masochist, thank you. --Kim Bruning 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw poll? Does anyone else see the irony in using a straw poll to decide whether RfA is too much like a straw poll? -Amarkov moo! 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Problem

message: 1 boldface, 17 Comment, 1 Endorsed, 1 Fnord, 1 Further comment, 9 Neutral, 38 Oppose, 1 Oppose Neutral, 1 Opposse, 1 Quick return, 1 Reply, 1 Strong Oppose, 2 Strong Support, 30 Support, and That took less than a minute. I think this comment speaks for itself. --Random832 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformat fails to go far enough 

message: I ran across this article today and couldn't help thinking it was an apt analogy to the current state of RfA. The old 10,000 monkeys bit doesn't work as we're not writing anything here. Just a bunch of furry, cute mammals running around dropping pellets everywhere :) --Durin 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do Behave! :-P --Kim Bruning 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still believe that people are acting more intelligently than that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess so --Kim Bruning 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy. The RFA talk has turned into a joke room of sorts. bibliomaniac15 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny analogy