Wikipedia talk:Proposed adminship

message: A single user denying another user adminship? I think that will cause an awful lot of personal grudges. In a perfect world, people would just accept the criticism and move on. That doesn't happen. Removing prod tags from articles can be contentious; denying someone adminship in the same way? I doubt too many people are interested in unilaterally deciding that and dealing with the headaches (and possibly harassment) that will come with it.  
On the other hand, requiring multiple users to agree on its removal would just bring us back to a tally. X number of opposition and the RfA fails. So, as far as I can see, this just adds another layer of bureaucracy (albeit a thin layer) without doing away with any of the existing process. Kafziel Talk 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do accept that, but this would run along side the existing RfA process, it wouldn't replace it at all, in fact users who fail proposed adminship will be actively encouraged to take out a full RfA (that could be added to the proposal). It's simply meant to be an easier way for the clear potential admins to get the mop without messing around with pile-on support. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is value to "pile-on" supports. They represent another pair of eyes that has looked through the nomination and not found a major issue that should prevent the nominee from becoming an administrator. That's not the case in this type of system: we don't know if a "successful" nominee's contributions have been researched, thoroughly or otherwise, by three people, ten, or a hundred... or if they haven't been looked at by anyone. Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I dislike it for the same reasons I don't use prod. It's an extra, optional step in an already convoluted process. It's easy to abuse (in this case by grossly unqualified users) and essentially just forces good users to waste time, first by removing it and then by defending themselves from attacks after they do so. I don't see any benefit here, because an RfA with absolutely no opposition is a rare thing indeed. Kafziel Talk 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree for this case, and I do like prod. I think I made these points in the WT:RFA thread already. Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening thread

message: This proposal has already, in effect, been turned down. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Let.27s_end_this_silliness. There are a number of strong reasons to reject this proposal outright. --Durin 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll read the discussion, you'll see that there is actually hearty support for this proposal!  Consensus has certainly been reached that this is not only a good idea, but one worth taking the next step forward with!  Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 09:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to have to demonstrate a lot more evidence of such consensus than just a bald statement like that. -- nae'blis 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Already defeated

message: I'm a big fan of any attempt at getting more good admins on board, but I do have a concern. Under Wikipedia:Proposed adminship#Removal of the template, #2:
:"2. Made at least 100 edits across all namespaces."
Seems somewhat subjective, and should probably get pared back some. I myself have a fairly high edit count, but don't have 100+ edits in all namespaces (and of course, a non-admin just simply can't have any edits in the MediaWiki space); specifically, I'm lacking in the MediaWiki, Portal, and Category spaces (and their respective talk spaces).
I don't really have a solution to recommend, I'm just pointing out that it may need some rewording; I've been an editor for over a year and an admin for about six months, but according to this, I shouldn't de-prod a prospective admin, which just burns my ass. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EVula, I think you misunderstood the proposal.  I read it to mean 100 edits regardless of which namespace the edit was in.  That's a really low threshold.  It means 100 edits total in some combination of Mainspace, Talk, User and User talk would be enough to qualify an editor to remove the template.  --Richard 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's what I meant, it most probably should be worded clearer, but we need to attempt to stop disruption only accounts removing the template. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That won't stop disruption-only accounts. I can make 100 fully legitimate edits in 1-2 hours (spelling, minor rephrasings of text, stub sorting, vandalism reverts + vandal warnings). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, okay, after re-reading it, that does make sense. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I misread this part, too.  I've made an edit that might make it clearer; please feel free to revert or change it. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comment 

message: I think that the only reason why anyone should be stopped from becoming an administrator is if the high number of administrators causes legal trouble to Wikipedia somehow, because everyone would be able to see deleted content.
Another terrible thing is the ability of administrators to unblock themselves: if there were no legal problems and administrators could not unblock themselves, then every user should have the administrator tools, and if the user abused them, the user would just be blocked and would not unblock themself. A.Z. 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are other issues as well. Look what damage User:Robdurbar did in just 17 minutes. Even if there were no legal problems and admins could not unblock themselves, vandals would stop inserting gibberish into articles and delete the article instead, which would not only be another problem for RC patrollers but would stop readers from seeing the article. Hut 8.5 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A.Z., this is not the place to discuss if everybody should be an admin or not, this page is for discussing the proposal for PROA. If you must, bring this up at WT:RFA. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone should be an administrator 

message: Some of this have been posted already, but I may as well say them again.  Just for clarity, as much as anything.
The Process
* I like this.  It's simple, it's contestable, therefore it's balanced, and it seems effective.  The current "RfA patrol" will probably spend their time patrolling the appropriate category, so it's not like people will get through unseen.
Addition of Template
* Seems simple enough.  Clarification on HOW it must be substituted would be appreciated.
Removal of the template
*I don't like #1, because I believe that admins are everyone's responsibility, and no amount of experience (or lack of, for that matter) should influence what say someone has in this regard.  After all, admins can effect accounts that are less then 30 days old, so the reverse should also apply.
* I'm very passionate about the comments concerning edit count on WP:ANOT, and thus firmly oppose #2.
* #3 seems like common sense.  I'd have the whole thing run with ONLY #3.
I also like the 30 day cool down period before adding the template again.  Thumbs up on that.
Directions for closing bureaucrat
Before closing any expired proposed adminship, bureaucrats should check through the contributions of the proposed administrator and decide themselves if they would make a suitable candidate.
To me, this undermines the entire process.  If this is removed, as well as points 1 and 2 mentioned above, I will support the program.  At the moment, I am neutral. ~  G1ggy!  blah, blah, blah 11:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to to have some way to stop the trolls and vandals from simply removing the template, that's why we need the restrictions on who can remove the template, otherwise, an IP page blanking a userpage of a candidate would in effect mean that they fail, it's not about editcountitis, it's about protection. Also, the final 'crat check is required, to make sure that somebody slips through that shouldn't do, it doesn't undermine the whole process, it's just a safety net. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why a blanking (that removed the template) couldn't be reverted, with a note left on the talk page, or in the template, saying that an rvv took place.   As for the b'cat, if a safety net must be imposed, I'd like it to be VERY loose, so that 95% of candidates at least get through it.  It should ONLY be there to remove those whose template probably wasn't even viewed.  It shouldn't be another review process.~  G1ggy!  Reply 23:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Along those same lines, of the problems that occasionally comes up with PROD is that it gets applied to articles it shouldn't (because they've already been prodded, or because they've been through AFD, etc). I'm assuming no one supports people trying Proposed Adminship more than once, but is there a mechanism/way to track who has been removed, and (ideally) the reason given)? That would also help spot the spurious removals, or at least track trends on why the template was removed, if nothing else. -- nae'blis 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forbidding self-noms would help, but you could easily get a sockpuppet/meatpuppet to nominate you. I'm not sure how we propose to coach b'crats to 'vett' candidates, since it's not something any of them agreed to when they ran for RFB. -- nae'blis 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My comments 

message: While I personally still think this process is doomed to failure, I have made a number of changes to the proposal itself in the interest of tightening language and reflecting concepts I see on this talk page. In summary:
# I removed the concept of self-nominations. We do not allow the same administrator to delete a prodded article as nominated it, and the sysop bit is considerably less overturnable in case of malfeasance.
# Strengthened the requirements for declaring the reason for removing the template. 
# Removed the possibility of re-nomination through this process, except when the candidate takes down the template themselves. We don't re-PROD articles, and any valid reason given once is probably reason to go to RFA for the full process. I also clarified that while it's not technically forbidden to run through this process after a failed RFA (I'm thinking mainly of the 60th-edit RFAs that are doomed for experience, not actual malfeasance), it is likely to draw an objector or two.
# Reworded the b'crat prerogative to 'review the candidate' to simply state that they may remove the template themselves as a normal editor, instead of promoting.
Make sense? Check my edits for sanity, clarity, bias, etc, please. -- nae'blis 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  significant edits to proposal 

message: Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to get a straw poll going for this? It's such a big change to how adminship can be gained that a full community input should be gained into it. We're not going to get consensus on this page, and even WT:RFA isn't going to get a wide enough view. I'd like to propose we plan the questions for a week, mention the poll on the village pump, WP:AN, then let voting prevail for a further week. Sound OK? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no? --Kim Bruning 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: My suggestion: What if after someone supports or opposes the candidate, we have someone else check to see if the reason given was valid and then the crat checks again when closing it so we get a few pairs of eyes in there. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-checking 

message: Wikipedia is supposed to be a community by and for people.  By simply allowing a user to be promoted to admin, it means throwing out all experience and community we have strived for for years.  The only way we can continue a reliable and reasonable way of promoting admins is to keep the voting process where it is. Jmlk17 23:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Idea 

message: I note one candidate in :Category:Proposed administrators. I also note that this candidate is in fact already an admin. Radiant! 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the history of User:Ryan Postlethwaite you'll see that he added the tag as a demo. --Tony Sidaway 09:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. For the record, I don't believe this will work effectively, but do not a priori object to a trial. >Radiant< 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this starting already? 

message: thumb|rightRFA is really not so harsh as people think. >Radiant< 15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but but please provide a reliable source for your claim; tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia, should be eschewed in favor of primary or secondary sources.Really, Radiant, I'm disappointed in you. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's sad seeing this pic isn't it, just think, if PA was active the hundreds of comments that have been made in those 100% RfA's could have been used on something constructive! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If PA was active, a third of those users (anyone not at 100%) would have been rejected. Kafziel Talk 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And free to run through the normal RfA procedure. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would put us right back to having those hundreds of comments, just slightly delayed. Kafziel Talk 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Ryan, I imagine most of the time is not spent on the comments (although some of them are quite funny and probably do require some thought), but rather on searching through the candidates' edit histories. That should occur regardless of which system we use. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Selection bias, you can see the variability in this chart.  Also, the high ratio of currently successful candidates may simply mean failed ones are getting SNOWed earlier.  —dgiestc 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *The glass is half full, people :) >Radiant< 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm more of a "the glass is at 50% capacity" person myself. Besides, it's much more fun to just be an ass. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Lets get the ball rolling here!  Ryan, you've done a bang-up job, mate!  How's about tagging this as a policy so people can actually start using this as a means by which to secure the few extra buttons that the sysop flag affords? gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please note that people should feel free not to use PROA - that is, we're not forcing this on the community, but rather making available a much easier process gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've still not dealt with numerous concerns above, though. Has this been posted to Centralized Discussion or the Village Pump? -- nae'blis 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's premature to start "tagging this as a policy", considering that at least half of the people who've commented on it are opposed to the idea or certain parts of its implemention, and that many of the issues raised have not been addressed. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * I still don't like it.  A prodded article can be restored if a single user objects after the fact.  This is to account for the fact that someone might not notice a prod until it is too late.  The slower discussion-oriented processes are not overrulable by a single after-the-fact objection because by virtue of being a public discussion, they represent consensus.  If someone gets sysopped simply because nobody noticed until it's too late, then it stands to reason they should be desysoppable if anyone objects later.  It's only fair, right?  But then that completely nerfs them as an admin because if they do anything controversial they get desysopped. —dgiestc 21:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To nae'blis, haha I may have jumped the gun a bit!  I'm just enthusiastic to finally see a de-emphasis placed on a few extra buttons.  I'll get it over to the Pump as soon as I'm done with this post.  To dgies, last I heard, it takes about four minutes to de-sysop someone if he/she is acting out of sorts (though I would like to put forward a simple way to desysop someone as soon as we get this up and running).  Also, I think you're getting a bit stuck on the whole PROD thing.  While this is inspired by the PROD system, it is its own unique entity.  Also, to say nobody will notice is a bit silly, as I'm sure the RfA regulars will watchlist the category or page where a bot lists the PROA people.  gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod with deletion is okay, because it is easy to reverse a prod, if someone complains after the fact the prod is reversed and a proper AfD may ensue, we cannot be deadmining prodded admins after the fact then doing an RfA. We don't need two classes of admins, ones who have demonstrated they have community trust, and those who have simply demonstrate a lack of community distrust. Not the same thing. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that you're relating the "trust" and "lack of distrust" appropriately.  As mentioned, this will be highly visible and there will be  (or rather, I'd like to see) a subpage where people can voice their support in case the PROA is rejected or opposed and goes to RfA (this subpage will then be the RfA page) gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the category is filled with lots of usernames, individual PROAs will not be very visible. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That does not resolve the fact that the lack of evidence of distrust is not the same as evidence of trust. This test creates a demonstrate of a lack of distrust, whereas our criteria is a demonstration of trust. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you're coming from, but as mentioned, people can voice their support on the subpage or reject the PROA if the candidate is deemed unsuitable by the 'rejector'.  As mentioned several times, this will be highly visible where all the RfA regulars can see it.  The PROA policy does not create a need for a lack of distrust, but a collective approval of everyone who sees it, which should be quite a few people. gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spread the word 

message: Why couldn't we just transclude, or otherwise maintain, a category or list of admins who are currently proposed for adminship, and have it appear in full on the regular WP:RFA page? That way, anyone who would normally be voting in an RfA will still have the opportunity, in the very same place, to look through all those candidates, and anyone who would normally oppose them can simply go object to the proposal. Would this remove concerns about "not having the trust of the community" or about this being a "stealth" process? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea!  The suggestion of "sneaking people through", so to speak, has been brought up by fellows who, in good faith, have apparently missed what this is all about.  It's about making things easier.  It (the list of PROA people) should be highly visible through a category that is updated by a bot and a page which can be watchlisted to show everyone in the category.  WP:RFA is a great place to display these names, or at least a place where a prominent link to a subpage could be displayed (so as not to clutter the main RfA page). gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you left an oppose vote for a candidate today stating that "I'm rather underwhelmed by the responses to the questions, which demonstrate that he might not actually know how to use the buttons, which is a bit of a concern". Doesn't this indicate that it's important to have potential candidates give a statement and communicate with the voters as a display of that kind of knowledge? Isn't that safeguard being eliminated here? Dekimasuよ! 00:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People have talk pages. If you want to hear what the candidate has to say on something, you visit their talk, you say "Hey, related to your proposed adminship, I'd like to know what you think on...". If they refuse to answer, or you don't find the answer satisfactory, it'd still be your option to dispute the proposal based on that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Brilliant... in fact I suggested something similar below, but having the current RfA able to use the proposed option after the process is started. LessHeard vanU 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Show proposed admins on the RFA page?

message: This worthy proposal falls foul of one constant; someone, somewhere at sometime will oppose. At RfA there can be a vote of 50-0-1 (with a well founded and argued opinion against) and a rightly succesful application. With this method it doesn't matter how many eyes/ayes see it, that one nay is all that is required to end it. Even with a 51-0-0 result there has been the case of an oppose (or neutral tending toward oppose) that has been persuaded to change their mind (and strike out the original vote) by discussion or by the proposee answering their concerns.
On that last point, a neutral at RfA may be inclined to oppose here as that is the only available option to staying silent. Rather than easing any burden at RfA this proposed system will likely create very few successful candidates, and (as previously argued) add another layer to the process.
=== A suggestion ===
Um, whilst writing this the thought occurred to me that this could be an option at RfA if an application is sailing through and a consensus develops that there will be no oppose vote, and with a drastically reduced time scale (48hours?), with a note at the RfA. If the PROA is opposed then it reverts back to the RfA where the reason for opposing is turned into a vote. The full process continues. If the proponents of this suggestion want to tweak this then please do.
LessHeard vanU 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen this chart?  It essentially confirms what you proposed (though for about 54, not 48 hours).  The only caveat I'd add is that since that date was analyzed, there was a recent RfA wich went unopposed until about 6½ days when some misconduct surfaced, and the bureaucrat kept it open longer while the opposers piled on. —dgiestc 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yes, interesting. It doesn't seem that my suggestion has been taken up, though. As for the recent example of a late change of heart I would comment that i) no system will ever be foolproof (because there will always be a bigger fool?), and ii) you have to ask what it was that took so long to uncover, how recent it was, and if it really had relevance to the application before them. Using the above system the proposed Admin might have got the mop&bucket; any later evidence of wrongdoing would have meant that it would have had to be reviewed. If it was serious then the appropriate actions would need taking (including desysoping), if not so then perhaps the appointment would have been unchallenged. I can really see a benefit to using this system, as a process within RfA (but not separately and certainly not instead of). LessHeard vanU 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers game 

message: Um, whilst writing this the thought occurred to me that this could be an option at RfA if an application is sailing through and a consensus develops that there will be no oppose vote, and with a drastically reduced time scale (48hours?), with a note at the RfA. If the PROA is opposed then it reverts back to the RfA where the reason for opposing is turned into a vote. The full process continues. If the proponents of this suggestion want to tweak this then please do.
LessHeard vanU 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen this chart?  It essentially confirms what you proposed (though for about 54, not 48 hours).  The only caveat I'd add is that since that date was analyzed, there was a recent RfA wich went unopposed until about 6½ days when some misconduct surfaced, and the bureaucrat kept it open longer while the opposers piled on. —dgiestc 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yes, interesting. It doesn't seem that my suggestion has been taken up, though. As for the recent example of a late change of heart I would comment that i) no system will ever be foolproof (because there will always be a bigger fool?), and ii) you have to ask what it was that took so long to uncover, how recent it was, and if it really had relevance to the application before them. Using the above system the proposed Admin might have got the mop&bucket; any later evidence of wrongdoing would have meant that it would have had to be reviewed. If it was serious then the appropriate actions would need taking (including desysoping), if not so then perhaps the appointment would have been unchallenged. I can really see a benefit to using this system, as a process within RfA (but not separately and certainly not instead of). LessHeard vanU 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: I'm a non admin willing to see how many hours (minutes hopefully not) it would take for a no, I'll report on the real why for whatever person it is jbolden1517Talk 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post an app at WP:RFA in the conventional way, but replace all the questions with a note explaining it is a trial of this process, then strike the support and neutral sections. Dgies 03:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i don't want a failed RFA that's permanent and searchable.  Remember the fact that good people won't do it is the reason this all started.   jbolden1517Talk 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do it without a subpage.  We can't have a trial without it being posted somewhere pretty public. Dgies 03:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Without a lot more discussion, any kind of trial would only prompt a lot of opposition.  Let's talk this through more. --Tony Sidaway 09:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You want a real trial?   

message: I believe it's pretty much been established on this talk page that sufficient editors object to this process that any "proposed admin" candidates will be denied by at least one of such editors, thus forcing them to use the regular RFA process once more. This is a far cry from the initial reactions to PROD. Radiant! 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we'd need a lot more support to go ahead with this.  I'd like to see those who are skeptical about it agree to a trial.  If that isn't feasible then it's unlikely ever to work. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us are not just skeptical; we are against it. It has nothing to do with consensus and does nothing but add a bureaucratic step to what we already have, without reducing any of the red tape at all. There's no need to try it because even if it works, we don't like it. Kafziel Talk 15:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the RFA back end, which sort of kills a lot of red tape. I have no idea who added it, but that sort of defeats the object, eh? --Kim Bruning 16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Falling back to established process when the simplified process fails is common practice on Wikipedia, and any system which can get caught in a recursive loop is bad process. -- nae'blis 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite as far out there as Radiant in declaring this finished; I think it's unworkable and will not achieve the goals originally intended, but I do not intend to remove the tag as a protest statement from otherwise good candidates.  -- nae'blis 15:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the use of this tag as an affirmation that the candidate either fears criticism or dislikes the consensus-building process, both of which are an every-day part of being an admin. In light of Kim's recent changes to the proposal I think I should also say I'm not going to discuss tag removals with any candidate. I will leave my reason, and it is not open to endless debate. Call me pointy if you like, but I say forcing this proposal into a test phase despite a sea of objections is pointy in and of itself. Kafziel Talk 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The conclusion that "use of this tag as an affirmation that the candidate either fears criticism or dislikes the consensus-building process" doesn't seem compatible with our Assume good faith policy to me.  --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would cetainly plan to inspect any candidated tagged for this process, adn i would probably either nominate the canddiate at RfA if I thought s/he would mage a good admin, or else remove the tag. DES (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't have to "assume" anything, Tony: if the user placed the tag on his page, he has demonstrated his reluctance to go through even a tiny taste of the criticism and red tape he will face as an admin. I don't have to debate or defend my reasons, because there's no "list of valid oppose reasons". I've been saying that since this proposal got started and, if you recall, I knew people would start to get defensive and start throwing AGF and POINT around when the rejections actually started. You assured me that wouldn't happen; what changed? Does my opinion on this subject suddenly make my behavior "egregiously bad"? Kafziel Talk 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets hope it does not get backlogged. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well 

message: This system SHOULDRFC 2119, be self maintaining, and if it does, it MUST NOT RFC 2119 fall back to RFA in case of doubt. One way to do that is to simply apply Bold revert discuss. I'm open to other ideas, of course. :-) --Kim Bruning 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, I don't really follow most of what you just said, but... no. I will not debate. Kafziel Talk 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **Er, Kim, the precise reason we need AFD aside from PROD is that there's a need to, as you just said, debate (some of) our decisions, which isn't possible in PROD. >Radiant< 16:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this is an issue with PROD. It does not properly allow WP:BRD on the PROD tag ;-) --Kim Bruning 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And that is because many novice users are unable to distinguish between BRD and a regular edit war :P >Radiant< 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... well, BRD can safely become quite heated, while there are still no 3RRs or page protections (or even (other) mediators) in sight? ;-)  --Kim Bruning 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Kazfziel, you're the one who started violating WP:WOTTA first ;-) Basically, on a consensus based wiki, you are required to (be able to) explain your actions (edits) to anyone who requests so, at any time, provided such a request is reasonable and made in good faith. This is a requirement that flows from the nature of the wiki, it would be very hard to maintain the community without it. If you are unwilling to discuss issues, there are likely several projects -even within wikimedia- that are less tied to consensus (although in my opinion, such projects under-utilize their wikis)  --Kim Bruning 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to discuss (to some extent) my decisions on RfA. But since RFAPROD is silence-driven instead of consensus-driven, I will not debate them here. People don't have to debate their reasons for not removing the tag (as nobody will even know they viewed the candidate's request) so people don't have to debate their reasons for removing it, either. Kafziel Talk 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the whole theory is based on starting a debate when you remove the tag. This allows you to find candidates who still need instruction on how to be an admin, and teach them how to improve. If you don't debate, then the excersize is kind of pointless. <looks apologetic> --Kim Bruning 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually the whole process is based on sending the person to RfA when you remove the tag. I'm not interested in finding candidates in need of admin coaching; there's already a process for that.  But I'll agree that the exercise is kind of pointless, yes. Kafziel Talk 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that was insane, I just threw that out today. (note also the heading of this section). Also, admin coaching often coaches the wrong people. --Kim Bruning 18:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So because you (and you alone) say we must not use RfA, that's the end of it? It's suddenly "insane"? Every argument you have leads back to that statement, as if it's some kind of obvious fact, but it isn't. You took out the RfA bit. It can be put back in. Kafziel Talk 18:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUST NOT use RFA 

message: This is significantly different from the current functioning of RFA. In first instance, you just want a scalable RFA, not a request for banning-adminship :-P --Kim Bruning 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First objection to retries: There's no history of prior attempts. Unless you wish to go through all of a user's userpage history, and also ask someone who can view deleted edits to make sure the page wasn't deleted upon request, then it's very difficult to obtain context on prior requests. With RFA, when Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William Rotelle 37 shows up, I can at least know to look a little closer. My second objection is that multiple people have removed the retry clause by now, so it seems to be off the table. Semantics of whether it fails-over to RFA or some other process are not really relevant. PROD works the same way. -- nae'blis 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes it impossible to BRD. Other Options?  (Note: PROD should not fail-over either, or if it does, it should fail-over to a different scalable process.). --Kim Bruning 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know BRD isn't policy, right? You keep using that to invalidate all this stuff, but it's just one method of consensus building. Kafziel Talk 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Kim, I've already mentioned that BRD works on articles, not policies (proposals are neither fish nor fowl). You're not even arguing logically, so I think I'm done here. -- nae'blis 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I've mostly tested BRD in policy disputes, where it works rather well (if rather slowly) --Kim Bruning 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No retrys? 

message: Someone who knows more about statistics and population growth stuff might be able to explain this, but I found the comment somewhere above about the number of edits to Wikipedia remaining roughly constant over several months interesting. This suggests that Wikipedia's exponential growth (maybe not strictly exponential, but you know what I mean) is starting to plateau. First question: how can this be determined more accurately? Second question: what does this mean for the "scale problem"? Carcharoth 16:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get back to you on the questions. --Kim Bruning 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exponential plateauing of Wikipedia growth