Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 92

message: I just tried to ask Kelly martin what she felt about some questions she had on required endorsements from wikiprojects.  She removed it form her talk page as "intrusive" here.  I know this has been a common discussion, but I would like some other points of view on this, as I do not have strong feelings either way, however would like to engage in some constructive discourse over this concept.  My concerns are based on the fact that I do not see how having a wikiproject endorsement is any different than a nomination from an editor who has worked with them, been around them, seen how they work, a nomination likley not based on merit? For that matter, multiple nominations from editors who have worked with them and are nominating based on experience with this editor, not merit?  Does anybody else see the possible problem with the fact that forcing wikiproject endorsements will possibly weaken the process, by allowing the candidate to semi canvas, or get support from a project member who say, will support any rfa candidate not based on merit, but based on the fact that they asked or are listed as members in the same wiki project even though they may have never worked together. At what point would the line be drawn for an appropraite wikiproject endorsement (I.E., if a member of wikiprject x endorses every admin candidate, would there be a point where his endorsement would not count)?  It is like some poor forms of parlimentry procedure I have been involved in where there is always somebody to offer a "second" no matter wht the motion is. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if there are reccomendations of a more appropraite place to strike up this discussion, i am all ears! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Chris,. I fear you are getting worked into a tizzy over nothing. At present, Kelly's opposition/neutral stances are not significantly affecting the workings of RFA, and her stated intention behind these mysterious actions is not one that should engender bad faith. Therefore, I encourage you to let this go; venue-shopping is not going to improve your understanding, merely confuse others when you bring it to these unrelated places. Commenters are presently allowed to state their opinions for, against, or neutral on any basis or indeed no basis at all, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. If you see it affect the outcome of a particular RFA, you may wish to bring it up there. -- nae'blis 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been some discussion here about the idea and plenty on Kelly's talk page. Many have tried to express that it's a bad idea and I, among many others, have pointed out to her to no avail that this is asking for a shrubbery since there is currently no way for such an endorsement to possibly exist without it being seen as canvassing. However, anyone who says that is being uncivil or, even worst, has a vested interest in seeing it fail. I also believe it is definitely a nuisance to have every other RfA candidate start a thread on their RfA about how they don't understand how they could have an endorsement from a WikiProject. In effect, Kelly is using RfA to promote her idea and I think it's a terrible way of proposing changes. Pascal.Tesson 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you pascal that it is a terrible way of opposing change.  The question is, what should be done about it?  This is something I feel strongly about, and why i have chosen to start addressing it.  Above, there are several threads where I bring it up, but it gets "stomped" out like many other things brought up here.  All I am asking is for a chance to have a discussion.  Propose sides, have arguments, have a debate.  Is that too much to ask? That is what i see as being much more of the wiki way then trying to immedaitly silence something.  Please note, I have not gone after any editors specific behavior, isntead attempted to engagte in discourse with them about it (which was also stomped out). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As an addendum, after following the above links to kelly martins post stating that there will be fear because there is much influence to be lost.  First off, I have no fear over this, I activility participate and have the support of several wiki projects.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies if it seemed like I was shooting you down; I'm a semi-outside observer and it seemed to me that for whatever reasons, your points were not being communicated/understood well by others. Durin thought you were calling Kelly's objections gibberish, and Kelly is rejecting your comments as intrusive. And yet, other people are simultaneously trying to engage in dialogue with Kelly, help her understand the opposition to her stance, and come to some sort of equitable solution. So what I was saying, in a somewhat hamfisted way, was 'relax, Chris, and go work on something else if you like; enough concern has been raised that it is not required that you be the one to drive it, so you can stop beating your head against the wall'. Does that make more sense? Consensus and Wikipedia can be beautiful in that the ones to raise a concern do not always have to be the ones to see it to conclusion. -- nae'blis 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent description.  I guess it appears to me I have fallen victim to questioning Color of the bikeshed, when I should really be working on building an encylopedia instead.  Thanks for the insight, it is much appreciated!  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why a subpage rather than a section? Several people have tried opening subpages already (/Reform and /Factors I think), but it tends to fragment discussion. -- nae'blis 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm the lead coordinator of a project and I think the projects have no business voting on RFAs, for one thing how would the "project" vote? Who and what process within the project would cast a vote?Rlevse 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nae'blis, the discussion will be in a section then. I will make it soon. Funpika 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. If she were opposing based on that, there might be some case of making a point, but all she's been doing is going neutral based on it, which doesn't affect the outcome anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well bainer, I have to say that Kelly was being so clear that her demanding of WikiProject endorsement was a "farcical criterion" that I had never even considered it as a possiblity until you suggested it just now. Potentially, the massive debates over this and affecting of RfAs may make this a WP:POINT case. I believe this kind of thing should be taken seriously. Also, when someone votes in an RfA, I assume that he or she is being serious and is behind the statements that are said by him or her. Captain panda 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing is, if somebody started writing in every RfA "Neutral until the candidate has contacted at least 10 other editors that they have interacted with so that they participate in this RfA" we would have definitely find this highly disruptive and in effect, this is what Kelly is encouraging. Pascal.Tesson 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. However, I don't think people are that stupid, or intentionally disruptive. We're talking one user with a funny oppose here - admittedly one user with a fair bit of clout, but still one person. I haven't seen any bureaucrats refusing to promote on the basis of a single opposing stance, even if it's a very good stance. And it's patently obvious that the vast majority of people don't think this is a good enough reason to withhold support. I frankly think this is being given more attention than it deserves. – Riana ऋ 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Riana ... I don't think we need to make a big deal about one editor's ... eccentricity. :) Besides, I think Kelly Martin's free to use any criterion she wants, even if it is to require that candidates see the world in Wiki source code ... a bit like in The Matrix. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Now you remind me of Masssiveego. What did he do again? It was so long ago... —210physicq (c) 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pile-on agreement to put an end to this overlong reaction. –Pomte 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding wikiproject endorsements 

message: Seeing that the RfA formatting wars have spilled to live RfAs, let me propose an emergency "rule" of sorts: Don't reformat or otherwise edit the format (remove tallies, support/oppose/neutral sections, etc) of live RfAs without the explicit consent of the candidate represented by the live RfA. Comments on this welcomed. —210physicq (c) 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People shouldn't do this anyway, really. -Amarkov moo! 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't, but they do it anyway, hence needing some sort of glaring message telling them not to. —210physicq (c) 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. --WinHunter (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe even the most ardent supporters of experimentation accept that as common courtesy. But of course, I also believe that if a candidate wishes to, say, agree to remove the tally, that shouldn't be held against him or her. (provided of course, that this is done at or near the start of the RfA and not 5 days into it) Pascal.Tesson 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all experimentation should be carried out by the candidate themselves, but who listens to me? If I were on RfA again, goodness knows what I'd have done to change it. Probably require each commentator to write a small limerick about how good I'd be with the tools. – Riana ऋ 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC) Well, it's one thing if the candidate agrees, and agreed that shouldn't be held against them. But it would be highly disruptive and inappropriate to jump in and change the format around without the candidate's approval, and given how touchy some people can be at RfAs, a candidate may be hesitant to vocally object. They should be asked, and if the answer is "no thanks, I'd rather do it the regular way", that should be the end of the conversation. Even if by some miracle a consensus were reached tomorrow as to changing the format, candidates already running when that consensus is reached should be given the option of changing or not, and the change made definitively only for future ones. (Lucky you're not going through again, Riana, I certainly wouldn't publicize any limerick I happen to come up with.) :) Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all seriousness, I believe one should only experiment with one's own RfA because the process is stressful enough. I had a fairly easy time of it, and I was pretty darn nervous throughout. To change the requests of people who are not very sure is unnecessarily nerve-wracking. After all, we're trying to make this process easier for people, not worse. And Seraphimblade, e-mail is open for all limericks, sonnets, haikus and nursery rhymes :) – Riana ऋ 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You thought yours was stressful? You only had two opposes! I faced six opposes with much less supports than you, and I thought I would face highway dispute-related trolling (I was involved in that dispute). Ok, I'll stop complaining. —210physicq (c) 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, well, that's kinda my point. If someone going through an easy request is slightly stressed, someone going through an request which is not going so well is not going to enjoy seeing their RfA pop up on their watchlists, only to see something as dumb as the numbering being changed to bullets, or the tally being changed into cuneiform. – Riana ऋ 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With a slight modification, the final tally for your RfA would have been: (10000111/10/0). 100001112 supports! Maybe we should make that modification to future RfAs ... you know, just to cause some panic and chaos. ;)-- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, what wouldn't I give for some chaos? – Riana ऋ 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "There are 10 types of people in the world: people who know binary, and people who don't." bibliomaniac15 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <obligatory>That's only 2, you moron!</obligatory> Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next 2 types involve people who want RFA to be easier and people who want more stupid reasons to oppose. Wait...we only have 4 so far. Funpika 10:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your username should be User:Bibliomaniac1111. I'm not going to bother fixing your timestamp into a binary format for you.-gadfium 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (<--indent) I agree wholeheartedly with this proposal; it was starting to feel like Russian roulette. - auburnpilot talk 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I perfectly agree. Reformatting existing RfAs won't do any good. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopgap measure? 

message: Can we try this out? I have a candidate in mind, if it doesn't work out, I'll take it to the current process. I really believe it's worth a try. If there's a cat, candidates that shouldn't be admins are going to get shot down straight away. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would want to work out the kinks first. I like the idea in theory, but the way it is put "on paper" just makes me nervous. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, certainly agree, I'll take a look at the workings of it tomorrow. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How exactly do you intend to implement it (reply tomorrow, if you'd like)? We can't just go ahead with this if only those 50-100 editors who have this talk page watchlisted know about it. Participation in RfAs may be dominated by a small group of editors, but at least Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is a long-standing page that a lot of people know about, even if they don't participate. Also, I don't think we should keep trying radical experiments in the absence of consensus to do so. Administrators are constantly the subject of accusations by vandals, trolls, and POV pushers. To quote Dekimasu, they should have "clear statements of support from the community, as opposed to a lack of statements to the contrary". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Summarize it and take it to Village pump (proposals) where it will get more exposure.  (I think it is a good idea by the way). John Reaves (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the proposal has merit too, but I agree that it would need a fair amount of publicity to be judged a proper test.  Is there any way to put a notice about it on the main RFA page?  Might also want to notify the bureaucrats to see if any of them have objections or suggestions. JavaTenor 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is implemented, even as a test, please remove the criterion that an editor may oppose only once every 3 months ... if this is truly to be for cases of uncontroversial adminship, people should be able to oppose multiple times. If you wish, make the requirement stricter (i.e., in order to successfully contest a proposed adminship, two editors whose first edit was at least X days ago, where X is between 7 and 30, must oppose). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be good to have the actual template in working order, a category set up, and a reference page (we can just edit WP:RFA, I suppose, or create a new page (WP:PROA?) and link it to WP:RFA. gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or just make a list of usernames at the top of WP:RFA, just like RFB is at the bottom. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no way this is ready for prime time yet. Unlike the experimental formats, this is a fundamental change in how consensus to promote is determined. Any candidate likely to pass under a no-serious-challenges system will fly through RFA, so what are we really gaining? I have to agree that if you know people who will pass easily, nominate them! -- nae'blis 17:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They fly even faster with no serious opposition system ;-) I say go for it! --Kim Bruning 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like it.  It changes the emphasis from yes/no to why-not?  And I can't see any great danger - anyone contentious will be brought to RfA anyway.  But, can we have something similar for de-admining?  ;-)  Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Nae'blis. This only creates more work for us when such a large percentage of RfAs draw at least one opposing voice. I said this in the section above, but I didn't receive a reply there. Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, apologies for the non-reply (if it was me you were looking for one from, hehe).  With regards to your comment directly above about creating more work, it actually saves a lot of work and process wonkery by simplifying the process and de-emphasising the importance of adminship (after all, it's no big deal).  If the prod / proa is contested, then it can simply be placed on RfA.  There will already be a subpage attached to the proa, so it'll be easy to 'transclude' it, if I'm using the right word there.  Also, Mr. Aveling, I hope to propose some sort of simple de-admin process similar to this in the future, but feel free to take the reigns on that one, haha gaillimhConas tá tú? 08:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Do we allow self nom prods?  Ben Aveling 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I don't see why not! gaillimhConas tá tú? 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Because part of the reason why PROD is accepted is that even after the article has been deleted, a dispute will immediately reverse the decision. Are people going to be able to protest after the week expires and have adminship revoked? -Amarkov moo! 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean, exactly; the perils of conversing in such a format I suppose :).  If someone removes the template, the subpage can just be sent to RFA much like articles that were denied deletion are sent to AfD.  Conversely, if no one removes the template, and the bureaucrat hits makesysop, it's reasonable to assume that people who know the fellow have seen it (having his/her userpage watchlisted) and the people who like to poke about RfA have seen it too (because they will be watching the category).  That is, there will have been enough saturation.  Of course, one can hit "desysop" just as easily as "makesysop", and I believe the waiting time for this is around seventeen minutes.  There's also ArbCom, RfC, and all that other stuff for seeking adminship revoked (if this works though, I'll try to come up with a suggestion for a streamlined way to do that too, haha)  gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that prod decisions can be overturned at any point, without discussion, even after the article is deleted. I don't believe that the process would be accepted otherwise. So, can people sysopped through this process be desysopped, without discussion, even after the waiting period is over? -Amarkov moo! 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not in any way as simple as you seem to think. For one, most watchlists are too long to keep track of every user you've ever interacted with (most of the time, I do so on other talk pages, not theirs), and a single 'format change' to their userpage after posting the template will obscure the posting. I don't even read userpages on my watchlist, and usually I'm viewing by namespaces (Main, Talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia_talk). Decentralization is not the answer here unfortunately, unless a similarly streamlined/decentralized desysoping process is implemented. And there's been significant resistance to that in the not-so-recent past. -- nae'blis 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had planned for there to be a category for people to watchlist for people who like to participate in the admin process ("RfA regulars" as they seem to be colloquially known).  That is, the PROA template will automatically place a user in the category, which can be monitored by parties interested in the process.  Knowing little about categories and templates, I'm not exactly sure of the specifics, but I know it can be done with relative ease.  gaillimhConas tá tú? 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this really like prod?

message: Simply put, PROD works because a significant number of AFD nominations are unanimous. PROA won't work because the vast majority of RFA noms aren't. >Radiant< 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but at least it would be able to quickly, and more efficiently, pass the really obvious cases, such as that of  The Rambling Man, which is currently 120/0/0.  Surely this wouldn't need the debate etc. it goes through.  And any decrease in the number of RfA debates must be seen as a good thing (that IS the purpose of this proposal).  This proposal has my wholehearted support. ~  G1ggy!  blah, blah, blah 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this won't work

message: It seems a faux pas on a level with saying "I enjoy torturing small animals" to say that one actually finds merit in the current system for RfA.
Yes, it has its flaws, but I think that mostly the good candidates are being promoted and the weak ones are generally weeded out. Borderline decisions either way come along now and then, but those who are promoted have generally not done much that's controversial and those who've not can always run again.
I think that Kelly Martin, in her inimitable style, is prompting some serious thinking... and one upshot may be to tweak how the Bureaucrats might weigh users' opinions when establishing consensus.
It could be the opposite of rose-tinted lenses, but it seems to me that when I first became involved in WP, I think that RfA was more aggressive than it is now, with more unchallenged opposes based on invalid reasoning. Perhaps that's why we're getting more clear-cut RfAs these days - Tangobot's currently tracking 13 RfAs and (based just on !vote counting, which is of course fraught, but nonetheless...) all but one of them are currently showing a pretty clear consensus one way or the other.
Anyway, I think that RfA in its current state is doing a reasonable, imperfect job. I have faith in the Bureaucrats to be sensible in their decisions. I also perceive that the system is evolving.
I now stand back and pull on the asbestos long-johns I prepared earlier. --Dweller 10:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with what your saying, the system seams to be promoting the right candidates, whilst weeding out the poorer ones. I really don't agree the current system is broken, yes people object to it, but it's clear that people are going to object to any system which people offer. I guess what I'm trying to say is - maybe it's better we stick with what we've got, and try and tweak it to perfection! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. It's the worst systen except for all the others.AKAF 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'll be immediately improved by (a) bureaucrats feeling free to ignore irrelevant objections (b) contributors eventually realising that irrelevant objections will be ignored, and it's not just a numerical count or one-moron-one-vote. I'd also like to see more towards ridiculous objections to new bureaucrats being ignored, particularly those trying to enforce one-moron-one-vote on RFA via bureaucrat votes. No, every opinion is not beautiful and wonderful and to be taken seriously - David Gerard 11:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Gerard, this is the second time I've noted that you are being extremely disrespectful toward other users. The first time you accused an admin of slander because he criticised someone's attitude and now you're calling opposers "morons". Please remain civil. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  David, where do you draw the line between "it is a ridiculous objection" and "I disagree with it"? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the point of this thread - and it's welcome AFAIC - is to step back and ask "is RFA really broken?". "What's broken about it?". These are important questions that should be asked before trying to mend anything; as such, let's discuss only those questions in this thread and leave possible remedies to the myriad of other threads on this page :) --kingboyk 11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either system is broken. It's just some people have standards/requirements that are restricting good candidates. RfB is an almost impossible task, not because it's broken but its voters have very high standards, it's probably easier to go to meta and become a steward. James086Talk | Email 11:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it somewhat puzzling that you don't think a process is broken when it's easier to become a bureaucrat and get the ability to demote people too on ALL Wikipedias (steward) than it is to get JUST the bureaucrat abilities on simply one Wikipedia. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that the people voting are the ones who need to change, not the system. I think we may have a differing understanding of "system". I meant only the code, the RfB template and the what it is used for (candidate makes a statement, answers questions, people vote). The only thing that is preventing people passing is the voting; I think people's standards are too high and/or they have ridiculous criteria for a bureaucrat, not that the RfB template needs to be changed. We can't alter people's reasons for voting just by changing the format of RfB, so I don't think it's "broken". I agree that it is too hard and I hope that some people will change their voting habits having read this thread. James086Talk | Email 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dweller about RfA working, good admins get by others do not. If nobody was complaining that would be a sign it is broken. If you fail, heed the advice you were given, wait a few months and try again, people are very forgiving of faults from a persons first RfA that did not follow after it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The system is obviously working; the question is whether it is producing sufficient numbers of new administrators. The increase of workload per admin over the last years seems to indicate that the number of promotions should increase faster than it does. Most of the recent remedies for "fixing RfA" do not seem to be directly related to this problem. Kusma (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue of producing sufficient numbers of admins can be quite easily resolved if those who think the current system produces too few admins nominate more candidates instead of spending days trying to change the system. I mean no offense to anyone by this, but am just pointing out that these types of actions are inefficient and counterproductive to the very goal of having more qualified admins. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't need more admins, just current admins actually doing the backlogs, I clear the TUP backlog and am keeping it clear. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a volunteer project. We must proceed from the assumption that present administrators are doing as much as they are willing to do. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but if the backlogs were causing a problem outside of RfA debates then someone would do something about it. But the only time I hear of the backlog crisis is in RfA debates. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Pascal, David and similar lines of thought. What is "broken" is the culture of RfAs. To me, what is broken is that standards have been replaced by metrics. This is like a call center, shipping or other industries where metrics are treated more valuably than actual quality measurement. Things have moved away from questions of whether a candidate has a clue, understands the rules, works well with others and similar measures. There are an inordinate amount of oppose and support !votes (the former more obviously than the latter) which are apparently based upon nothing more than an arbritrary metric. What is telling to me about the culture of RfA is that more people have gotten their knickers in a twist over Kelly Martin being Neutral and requesting a WikiProject endorsement than over people demanding a 4000-edit bar. You don't have to agree with Ms. Martin's request (I sure as a hell don't), but I find her requirement a world more valid than demands for raw metrics. At least her request directly relates to someone's participation in the community and ability to work well with others. The plain numbers don't provide any qualitative measure. Some people grasp in the first 500 edits what others will never understand and metrics are not going to reveal that capacity. Vassyana 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current system 

message: I am having serious doubts about this. Oh, requiring good and valid rationales will stop people from presenting bad reasons, but if you are hell-bent on opposing someone, I think that will be really easy. Something along the line of one of these rationales will always work:
*Oppose. The candidate does not have sufficient experience on deletion discussions for me to trust his ability to handle the deletion tool properly.
*Oppose. The candidate spends too much time on deletion discussions, and not enough time writing articles which I think is an absolute necessity for a candidate to understand the purpose of Wikipedia... it is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum.
*Oppose. Has not significantly contributed to making really great or featured articles, and I think that kind of experience is essential for an administrator.
*Oppose. Writing good and featured articles is great, but they are not activities which are related to, or require admin tools.
*Oppose. I think this candidate is too likely to speedy delete items which do not meet the speedy delete criteria.
*Oppose. I think this candidate is a process wonk who will let junk remain just because it doesn't fit the exact letter of CSD.
*Oppose. The candidate refused to answer my question on whether he would delete items which are obvious deletes, yet don't meet the CSD criteria.
All of these look like reasonable arguments (if you think they don't, then that is beside the point, drumming up something wrong, even for the best of us, is always possible), and they effectively mask the fact that the real reason for opposing is "Oppose, reported me to AN/3RR and I had only reverted six times!" Any comments? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Finding out the reasons for an oppose vote requires mind-reading capabilities of the bureaucrats (hey, I just found another criterion to make RFB harder to pass). If we start to openly discount votes, we just ask people to misrepresent their reasons. Kusma (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Could be, but it seems most RfAs are succeeding at the moment, suggesting that it's not just Bureaucrats - the other contributors to RfA are also largely wise enough to sense a bad oppose and ignore it. --Dweller 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Factors is a survey that aims to gather some broad opinions on what factors are important to the community when considering candidates and why they are important. The discussion so far has identified some factors which most people consider to be important, some factors which are good indicators of other important factors but not necessarily important by themselves, and other factors which are not widely regarded as being important at all. --bainer (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The question of whether requiring people to give a reason to oppose makes them automatically give good reasons is a question of a class known as a straw man argument.  But if someone gives his reasons for opposing it's easier to work out whether he's opposing for a bad reason. For instance, recently a lot of editors gave a candidate's past performance as an employee of the foundation as a reason to oppose.  Their opposition was correctly discounted.  This was helpful in deciding community consensus on the question at hand, which was: is this editor suited to be administrator? --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a yes or no question, do you trust the person. If your reason for not trusting somebody will not be accepted by the community, one that will can always be thought up. Since there are no actual criteria other than "I trust this person to mop", then we cannot simply dismiss arguments that don't meet the criteria like we do on AfD. Of course, as Tony points out, if the person does not know better to pick something that appears valid, they can still be discounted. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What, isn't trust enough? I don't see why we should change something that major when the system is not really broken, it will just make things worse. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If by encourage you mean allow human nature to continue, then ya. But I think any system will let people act any way they want. I still think people are seeing a problem where the is not one. If you want to be an admin, you need to be able to take criticism, even baseless criticism. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're almost saying that having baseless criticism on RfA is a good thing... Let's keep in mind that baseless criticism is always a bad thing and we should make every effort to minimize it. Making potential admins thicker-skinned is not an objective of RfA, nor should it be and while every RfA participant is entitled to their own views on a candidate, it should be made clear whenever possible that retaliation, collusion and other forms of trolling are not welcome. Pascal.Tesson 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that "retaliation" has to be used sparingly; "Oppose, this user wanted me blocked for no good reason" is definitely reasonable if it was decided that there was no good reason. -Amarkov moo! 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does requiring good rationales for opposing stop people from opposing for bad reasons? 

message: At the moment, there is no general consensus on what criteria should be needed for someone to become an admin. (This isn't surprising, nor is it necessarily a bad thing.) The current system has people doing something remarkably like voting, according to their own adminship criteria, some of which will be very low and some of which will be almost impossible to pass. At the same time, there are problems with discussion-based and consensus-based systems being very hard to close in a sensible way, and even with voting-like systems there are debates about what the threshold should be, which votes should be discounted, etc.. No matter how a crat closes an RfA, there's going to be controversy in such cases. Therefore, why not determine the RfA closing criteria the same way as RfA 'voting' criteria? The idea is that users may not agree on whether a candidate should be promoted (this usually happens), but they're much more likely to agree on how to close an RfA. I can well imagine a user going
;Discussion / Voting / whatever about the candidate
*Support no obvious problems Example User 13:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like another RfA after the first RfA. How often is the decision of a 'crat really an issue anyways? I think they do a fine job. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Only if we have another straw poll following that to determine if the consensus regarding consensus to promote is accurate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, maybe also perhaps some sort of wax seal why not? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letting everyone try their hand at 'cratting 

message: Is there any particular reason the template for RfA doesn't include a summary of the user's block history?
Wouldn't it make sense for the nomination code to generate
Exampleuser (talk • contribs • blocks) - YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER
Instead of:
Exampleuser (talk • contribs) - YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER
I only bring this up due to the current Nima Baghaei RfA, in which User:Nima Baghaei has had two blocks in the previous week for WP:3RR. It got me thinking about the RfA format. 
Would there be a serious objection to changing the current template to reflect a user's blocks? It's certainly relevant to the discussion of a user's merits, especially if they've got a history of Vandalism. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about changing this once, but decided against it because I thought it might serve to bias users from the start against a candidate without actually evaluating the circumstances of the block. For example, lets say someone was blocked two weeks ago, for an hour, for "disruption." The block eventually turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, but since the blockee was, oh, logged off, it wasn't challenged and the block ran its course. It would be incredibly to say "Oppose blocked just two weeks ago. ~~~~"; as the above sections highlights, even if this oppose is challenged, the opposer might pull a "vote-and-run," never coming back to apologize for their mistake and engage in a more thoughtful evaluation. So I think that providing a quick block log link risks knee-jerk opposes; the log is only one click away anyways, via contribs. Picaroon 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Picaroon practically took the words right out of my mouth. A valid concern, but I don't think it's a big enough problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it makes that much of a difference anyways. If a candidate has been blocked (even not so recently) somebody will bring in up within the first few hours. As for the "vote-and-run" problem, its importance is overstated. For one thing, in a case of mistaken identity, a great majority of people will reconsider if asked nicely on their talk page. Pascal.Tesson 22:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the first opposer, I probably should have gone beyond looking at the user's contribs and user page, and clicked "block log". It's more likely I would have done that if the link was there on the RfA. But, per Pascal.Tesson, somebody did point it out quite quickly and no harm done. --kingboyk 13:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using userlinks rather than user (as in ) gives most of the userful links for assessing someone for adminship, but the 'block user' link does seem somewhat out of place.  (which produces ) would be even more useful (although the 'rfa' link on it would always be a selflink except during RfB requests, and a link to the second-most-recent would be more useful still); I wonder how many people actually check for an RFC or SSP about a user before voting on an adminship request? (I'd suggest leaving the  template where it ism for format niceness and to avoid confusing Mathbot, and to use usercheck in the 'general comments' section by default.) --ais523 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a point of curiousity. 

message: There was a point last week, during Matt Britt's first RFA, where only five or six RFAs were active.  Now there are 21.  Any reason for the sharp surge in interest?  Maybe some of them were inspired by Robdurbar the Rouge? :)  Or maybe the scary format of Matt Britt's experiment scared away all the admin hopefuls until the storm washed over. YechielMan 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RfA numbers seem to go in waves, with a period of about 3 months. IIRC, there was a big spike back in January too. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this week's article in Signpost regarding RfA reform put the idea adminship in the minds of more users than usual. κaτaʟavenoTC 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What would be interesting to see, the promotion rate through these waves. Khukri 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A statistical quirk 

message: How would i close an RfA? Does doing the edit count of the user count as being involved in their nominatio, in this case? Simply south 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, only bureaucrats close RFAs. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it says users may if the candidate does not really have a chance in succeeding. Simply south 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was in general. It depends on how you look at WP:SNOW. bibliomaniac15 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without going into specifics of a case, I would leave it upto the 'crats. If however, you are positive that a candidate has failed an RfA, put  at the top, and  at the bottom. Then inform the user. Generally speaking, the user should have requested that their RfA be closed for you to do this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *There's more to it than that. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Instructions_for_sysoping_someone. --Durin 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should also archive the RFA among the unsuccessful requests (see link in the RFA template up top).  I've closed two RFAs, one by user request, and one where the count was something like (1/20/2) so I snowballed it.  My general rule for snowballing RFAs without the user's consent is that oppose votes must outnumber (non-moral) support votes by more than 10 to 1, such that it would be embarrassing for the nominee for the debacle to continue. YechielMan 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing an RfA 

message: I'm bringing this proposal up again. Why shouldn't any editor, with lets say 3,000 edits and 6 months (can be changed), be sysopped for around a week, and perform around 20 deletes, 20 protects, and 20 blocks. If they do something wrong, they can be reverted easily. During trial adminship, they shouldn't participate in anything controversial. After a week, either they stay sysopped, or if 5 people object to their actions, they have to go through an RFA. (during the actual RFA, they can either remain sysopped or can be desyssoped during it. It's annoying to get opposes because people don't think you'll use the tools right. Trial adminship shows them you can. 
How this helps RFA:
*It eliminates the need to vote unless people object after the trial. 
*It gets rid of "won't use the tools right" and not experienced enough opposes. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that I very much think this might cause is some Wikipedian to kiss up during the week and then cause a massive wheel war. I know that they can easily be desysopped, but prevention is the best medicine. bibliomaniac15 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you propose any checks before they get the mop for a week? This has a serious potential to go wrong - someone can cause extreme disruption within 5 minutes of getting the tools, e.g. delete the main page, put very rascist comments on - it's a train wreck waiting to happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, about 3,000 edits (not to userpage) and 6 months. I think someone can be trusted if they've done that. And if you want, the approval of one admin. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to oppose this proposal...again. Either the community trusts the user with the tools, or the community doesn't. It's that simple. —210physicq (c) 01:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if RFA was as simple as that, we wouldn't have this problem. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What problem? No, this is a serious question: what problem? —210physicq (c) 01:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That RFA needs changing, and shouldn't be a vote. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then trial adminship won't solve anything. The trial admin can be oh-so-friendly for one week, and then start abusing the tools after the "threshold" has been crossed. —210physicq (c) 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then be desysopped so easily. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is where some psychology comes into play. It is easier to confer something desirable than to take it away. What will happen to a good faith editor, undergoing this trial, who just isn't up for the tools? How will you explain to him/her that the tools must be revoked? Desysopping is technically easily (click a button and it's gone), but the aftereffects are dramatic. —210physicq (c) 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say something along the lines of how you say someone's RFA has failed. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are fundamentally different. Failing an RfA is similar to failing a job interview. Failing trial adminship is akin to getting fired from a temporary job, after you have conferred benefits like insurance, etc. Of course, I gave a situation in oversimplified terms, but only to show that there is a difference. —210physicq (c) 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. Here's an idea. I forget which, but I know there's a Wikipedia that you can adminship on with only 2/3 support. What if anyone with over 2/3 support, but is under the promotion threshold, is given trial adminship. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of that and had written something very similar into my last reply, but then I thought of objections to the idea, and responses to the objections, and replies to responses to the objections, and decided not to type it all up because it was threatening to turn into one of my habitual filibusters. (I asked someone once if they had seen my comment on Mackensen's RfB, and he replied "yes, I read your book." So I have to keep my comments shorter.) Suffice it to say that I don't think this proposal would be likely to be adopted either, although it does have some merits (and is analogous to what actually did happen after the last Carnildo RfA). Newyorkbrad 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure RFB needs to be fixed also. That is, so it becomes humanly possible to pass. (Maybe I should check what other species make up admins, at that page of admins by species that I can't seem to remember the title of. You showed it to me once.) --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RfB doesn't really need to be fixed ... unless we ever want to elect another bureaucrat ever again. :) I'm on record as saying that it may be literally impossible for any user to pass RfB right now, because there are questions that can't be answered without losing more than 10-15% of the !voters. Having said that, perhaps I will have to play guinea pig and try it myself sometime. Whoops, guinea pig—there's another species for you. (The page you are looking for is User:Radiant!/Classification of admins.) Newyorkbrad 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the passing threshold for RfB? —210physicq (c) 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a vote, and we don't count, and all that. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, the figures I've most often seen mentioned are 90% and 85%. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So essentially, it is a percentage that in the current stormy climate of RfA politics almost no one can surmount? —210physicq (c) 02:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I believe that no one has had a successful RfB since I've been active on Wikipedia, which is 10 months now, and it's not as if there have only been weak candidates. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I remember right, a b'crat said recently that the vote counters are nice in helping to determine an outcome of an RFA. So yes, RFA is vote. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. RfA is a unique mixture of both vote and discussion. —210physicq (c) 03:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not exactly. Discussion is often actively discouraged, in the form of people complaining about hounding of opposes and what not. Further, any mention of weighing some votes less than others sends a subset of the population here into a frenzy. No, RfA in current form is a pretty strict vote system. You can change your vote, but it is a vote nonetheless. --Durin 03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the fault of the system, but of the editors. Unless you say that the fault of the system is that it allows such "forbid debate" mentality, which is an entirely different story. —210physicq (c) 03:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *RfB figure is 90%, though WP:GRFA says 85%. 90% was agreed upon a long time ago. 85% was put into WP:GRFA by User:Voice of All in September of 2006 
 without any discussion either at Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship, here on this page (would have been archived in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 68) or at WP:BN. Not that I want the standards to be higher (I actually find the 90 vs. 85 debate to be meaningless; we're after consensus, not votes), but I'm changing WP:GRFA back to the 90 figure because it was never discussed. If we're going to change figures like that, we could just as well change RfA to 50% without discussion (that'd work for me, it being a straight vote system, but I digress...) --Durin 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found our solution to RFB. Since no human can possibly pass RFA, we must nominate Alphachimp! :) --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our critics would say we already have hundreds of inhuman admins and bureaucrats. Among the actual bureaucrats we already have Infrogmation, Kingturtle, and Tim Starling. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it's come up before, but I've just run across the process by which 'custodians' (technically equivalent to admins here) are created on Wikiversity.  It's an interesting process, which involves mentorship, probationary use of privileges, and community approval.  It would probably be worthwhile to see how things work (and work out) over there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial Adminship 

message: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Senior_Editor. Opinion? WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me  or learn something new! 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted there. Sr13 (T|C) ER 12:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note