Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship/Archive 1

message: If you make any changes to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Draft please make the same changes too Template:DfA, because that is the one that will be subst'd when new nominations occur. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

message: One thing that I'm not so keen on losing is the "Your description of the user here" bit. Bad faith or inexperienced RFAs can easily be identified by a poorly filled out one of these (Wikipedia is very very cool. RfA rocks!). I'm not sure a brief comment in the meritous section is as good as a proper paragraph on the user. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that makes sense but it introduces a loophole to get around diffs. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something along the lines of
====User Description====
 (keeping it commented since it will only be seen by nom and would further clutter AfA)?
smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually we have a lot of wikipedians around here. *scratches head* I wonder how we managed to get all of them together. Well, since they're here anyway, perhaps they could cooperate on creating an NPOV description of the admin-to-be. Rather than leaving the burden on the shoulders of the poor nominator. We might even be able to leave out the requirement of a popularity contest that way :-) Kim Bruning 23:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it might help users who may not write/get the best nomination, although I'd say it would be good form for nom (or self-nom) to add some Meritous actions (with diffs). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oh no! My proposal is much more far reaching. How about sort of making a short 'article' on why someone is objectively suitable for adminship? And having a nice conversation on a persons merits (or lack of :-P) on the talk page thereof. After a week, if the article in balance says "yes promote", then that'd be good. We'd be reusing existing encyclopedia process. :-) Kim Bruning 00:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Description 

message: Let's clean this up a bit. Why'd you suddenly change everything into formal voting? *Sigh* well, we can reword that.
In fact, we could possibly leave out voting altogether. perhaps a discussion is in order. Kim Bruning 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's voting? I don't see voting! Where? Let me kill it now! — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, all over the page: "In order to vote on adminship candidates" "votes lacking suffrage" "voting" "revote" "Voting and commenting" "Who may vote" "100 edits is welcome to vote" "votes for self are not counted" "Who may not vote" "Votes of very new editors" "You may explain your vote" "Voting will last for four days". Please kill it with fire. Dmcdevit·t 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed all but one instance. -Splashtalk 23:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jolly good! Kim Bruning 00:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  I've offered at RFA talk to put myself up as an experimental candidate (Lord Bob offered as well).  I'll make the same offer here, if people are interested in starting this off.  I'll await your feedback. Chick Bowen 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we clean up a bit? 

message: Not feeling to BOLD today, so I'll just suggest: 
* Suffrage for admins and discussion participants are both mentioned twice.
* Swap the timings around, four days talk, three days voting polling.  Get Durin to chew some numbers, but I'd guess that for the vast majority of candidates their percentage doesn't change that much after the third day anyway.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No voting! :-P Polling yes, like we have now. Better yet have a discussion. And hey, have you ever seen me get involved in an adminship poll, or AFD poll? :-) you can move the votes a bit, provided you're both honest and polite. Kim Bruning 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to instructions 

message: I've done #REDIRECT Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship
 for now to avoid any further fragmentation of discussion. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was unaware of this discussion, I'd knocked up my own template.  In it I suggested that we do not sign diffs, but that this is treated as a quasi-article.  Someone writes "AdminWannabe is from Cuba, and Cubans are cool!" and it's not signed, rather than having to debate it, we simply remove it a POV. Someone says "User:AdminWannabe grossly bullied User:Helpless newbie!" without a diff, we add add  and change it to less heated language.  Displace all argument to the talk page.  brenneman(t)(c) 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. Perhaps with a little more discussion it can be merged with our draft nom. Please see the bold note at the top of this page though. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the template 

message: Can somebody explain what is happening, all that suspension of RfA, new sudden changes to how the RfA's are administered, etc? I read the relevant talk pages but could not get it. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it seems two bureaucrats decided to, and unilaterally, suspend RFA for the new DFA. Then there was a big hoolabaloo, and RFA got un-suspended. So this is basically discussion over a possible "new" process for getting adminship. I'm still just as confused as you, though. NSLE (T+C) 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And when are we going to be asked which process, the old one or the new one, is preferrable? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is going on?  

message: The phrase "however, overtly supporting oneself is not counted." is unclear to me now that this proposal involves two stages. Obviously, you shouldn't be able to support yourself in the polling stage, but could you provide diffs in support of yourself? I'm not sure how I would read it - it could use some clarification but I'm not sure how would be best. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some wording issues 

message: Kim and I have both proposed a "narrative" version, without signatures and created using our existing practices: unbiased, working on talk page, citing sources (diffs), etc.  Creating this section for talking about that. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how would we determine whether the candidate should be made an administrator or not?  It's something of a binary decision—either the sysop bit is set or it isn't—so it wouldn't be as amenable to compromise as article text.  —Kirill Lokshin 02:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite as radical as Kim.  My version would have bog-standard "voting" at the end but hopefully avoid injecting personality into the mix in the "discussion" phase.  My ongoing RfA is a good example of what's wrong with discussion, where Tony and I got into our usual back-and-forth.  A collaberative approach to telling the story of the nominee would avoid that. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think it's worth a try: I think the narrative would probably indicate if the user can be an admin or not all by itself. Just apply the NPOV criterium. If the nomination page has an NPOV disputed tag at the top at the end of the week, you probably shouldn't promote ;-) If it really won't work, we can always fall back to brennemans idea :-) Kim Bruning 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll probably work most of the time; it's the borderline cases that might be more problematic. —Kirill Lokshin 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-article 

message: After I finish my checklist, 100 places to visit on Wikipedia before I die (or Rfa), I'm was going to Rfa.
If the diffs will be displayed, I may not do it. Displaying the diffs could be embarrassing to other Wikipedians involved in a conflict. This has the potential to re-ignite old conflicts. Going to end up being WP:BEANS. Telling people not to bring up old settled conflicts will make some people dig for them. 
For example, it is one thing to say,  “I had a brief conflict regarding KM’s stated attitude toward parties in Arb comm cases. I walked away from it to diffuse the situation.”  Quite another to display KM’s actual words. Is it in the best interest of WP to awake up these old conflicts? Should I have to decide between embarrassing another editor and becoming an administrator?  --FloNight 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comment has a possibility to ignite old conflicts. Someone might say "I had a brief conflict...I walked away..." but someone might say "This user is entirely unfit for adminship because they present a totally incorrect view regarding parties in arbcom cases." — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's something in both arguments. Of course past history will come up, but I do wonder if - as other people have suggested - there ought to be some sort of statute of limitations. Ultimately though, Ilyan is right and there's no great change from the old procedure. Diffs are often used right now. I would propose starting the new process in parallel as soon as possible, and we can work on these issues as we go. --kingboyk 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BEANS. Of course it is possible now. But it doesn't happen very often. This encourages editors to look for conflicts. Won't this increase tension in settled conflicts. Lot's of people settle conflicts by staying away from each other. When someone sees their past sins featured on a Dfa, won't this awaken bad feeling. My biggest fear is embarrassing other people that made uncivil comments in the heat of a dispute. --FloNight 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BEANS is irrelevant, because people look for conflict now. One bad diff posted can derail an entire RfA (and sometimes rightly so, sometimes I'm not so sure). One 'problem' mentioned with the current process is that someone can vote based on someone else's diff/testimony, then the other user is discounted/proven wrong/biased/got the wrong diff, and the pile-on users never come back to change their 'vote'. Having discussion occur first would allow for reasoned discussion rather than such a popularity contest as we have now, and more informed voters. I'd support having to datestamp your diffs, although the diff itself will do that... -- nae'blis (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My philosophy is let sleeping dogs, babies, and Wikipedia conflicts lie. 

message: This is good! I'm sure that the wording could use some more tweaking, but I think it'd be a good idea to replace RFA with DFA in the foreseeable future. >Radiant< 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Narrative descriptions and leaving stuff unsigned where possible are the way to go with this. Alphax τεχ 00:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is good 

message: I was taken aback by this "new proposal", and dear bureaucrats, please do not replace the existing RfA format before asking people first. But now I would like to discuss the most worrisome part of the proposed template. I find that split in three days of discussion and four days of voting to be an unnecessary and artificial rule. Why tell people they can vote only in the last four days? Why do discussion mostly in the first three days? 
You want more community discussion, be my guest. You want this to be not as much "popularity context", fine with me. But please don't restrict the periods of when people can vote and when they can't.  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue with the ongoing voting is when a problematic diff arises where User:AdminWanabee   says that User:Don'tHurtMe partakes in Nazi Midget Clown Sex.  Ten "oppose" votes pop off like firecrackers, but then cooler heads prevail and it is shown that User:Don'tHurtMe is a sockpuppet for User:NaziMidgetClownSex.  But the damage is done, most people don't come back and review the ongoing discussion, if for no other reason than that they don't log on more than once every week. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the flip side, does having a four-day period rather than a seven-day period mean that people who only log on once a week might participate in the first phase but not the second? —Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes, but for any period of time used anywhere, it is possible that people exist that log on less than that. For instance, someone who logs on once every eight days cannot participate in all present RFAs. >Radiant< 03:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Obviously.  My question is whether the new system will result in more people unable to participate. —Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The proposal was originally 5 days discussion, 5 days polling (not voting, I changed it), but some complained that it drags on the process too far. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd support 5 and 5 - ten days is not so long to consider when you're talking about near-permanent sysop powers. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just don't see what can be gained by having such a long period of time for both (you're skidding close to two weeks total). Will we get anything on the fifth day of discussion that we wouldn't have on the third? — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * As mentioned above, you'll get people that don't check RfA daily. Real-life activities can certainly keep someone away from Wikipedia for three days or more. Of course, all the more reason to remove the artificial separation and make it ten days, period. (or seven). Turnstep 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *We won't stop discussion in the voting period, but we'll keep voting off until the discussion is over. Considering that, does everyone think we ought to use 5/5 instead of 3/4? — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody says you have to discuss. If you have your own ideas and preferences, you have your own ideas and preferences. But if you have a specific case that you feel it will benefit others to know, throw it out there in discussion. We want people to get the big picture before they vote, however. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three days discussion and four days voting 

message: And if so who dares to go first? :-)
If it isn't live I'm not sure why we are discussing this in multiple places. I'll quickly restate what I've just written on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Draft: I feel that suggesting that the provision of diffs should be the norm is overkill. For the average editor discussing the average nominee it's a waste of time. I think diffs should be provided where there is controversy or a challenge to somebody's assertions but that, ordinarily, general comments such as "kingboyk did a great job on the Apple Corps article" (which I did, I might add ;)), ought to be quite sufficient. --kingboyk 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if I said that kingboyk would make a terrible admin and has a terribly short temper (not that you would or you do) wouldn't you want substantiation? It's not live yet, for exactly this reason. I guess people can't let anything pass without millions of years of bureaucratic discussion. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose what I'm saying is that diffs must be available to prove a point if requested. I'm trying to be realistic, and I for one feel that having to provide diffs for every comment will reduce participation. --kingboyk 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see your positions as opossed to each other, guys; and in fact, if this is the only reason why this isn't live yet, well, it's time to get it kicking. Basically, we're talking about common sense and the necessity to prove assertions that might have a serious impact on the course of the process. In the light of assume good faith, saying that AdminWannabe gets along with others nicely shouldn't necessarily be proved by a diff; yet a statement disproving such claim should definitely be backed. It would be completely impossible to demand a diff to prove "everything" that could be said, especially in favor of a potential candidate. My 2 cents. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 03:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the wording was changed to add "where possible". You can't provide a diff saying someone hasn't been here long enough. But we do need to underline that diffs are important. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed Sharon (Phaedrial). If you weren't relatively new I'd readily support you as candidate #1. (Having said that, let me just check how long you've been here :)) --kingboyk 04:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made a change to the policy proposal page (but not the template). Please evaluate it and of course revert back if you don't like it. --kingboyk 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed 'may be provided' to 'are strongly encouraged' (and changed the template as well). — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this live? Right here right now?

message: OK, this page seems to be Template talk:DfA too. Good. I would propose changing "providing diffs where possible" to something like "providing diffs if relevant" or "if necessary". I think also that the word 'diffs' should be wikilinked. If we're allowing new editors to post comments we shouldn't assume they know what a diff is. --kingboyk 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we though? — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm willing to assume that if someone has been here for a month, they know what a diff is. — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I think there is no problem with running this process concurrently with RFA. As long as there are bureaucrats willing to monitor this process and promote candidates on the basis of its result, that's the validity it needs. I see no particular problem if some candidates are being vetted and promoted through this process and some in RFA. A link to DFA should be provided at RFA so people know there is a new alternative. Demi T/C 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the short run, I agree.  Test it out, fine tune it, figure out what works, etc.  In the long run, I think there should be only one process of sysoping, regardless of whether it is RFA, DFA, some hybrid, or something else.  Allowing multiple different methods of sysoping allows for venue shopping among users, creates the possiblity that different forums would evolve different opinions of consensus, and pushes in the direction of allowing any burueacrat that disagrees to create their own process.  Dragons flight 07:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the long run, there has to be only one process in motion. But, as per others above, I have no problem with the two processes running concurrently. I welcome it, in fact. If this new process is broken, we can switch back immediately. If it's warmly received, we switch the old process off. Simple. --kingboyk 07:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running concurrent with RFA 

message: I think there will be a lot of unnecessary question-and-answer in the next few days that pointlessly duplicates what's already been discussed. The process that led from Problem -> Discussion -> Solution should be explained in a few simple sentences, at the top of this page, so people know a) it hasn't been done in a hurry or without discussion, b) exactly what the problem is being addressed and c) how this addresses some of the causes of those problems. It should be a very simple explanation, suitable for the skimmer. Demi T/C 07:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should do like they did for WP:RFR and make a common objections/questions page. — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Explanation 

message: Well, I've been travelling the world for the last few months so might have missed something; but two things are very unclear to me with this proposal which seems to have emerged somewhat out of the blue.  First, what exactly is the deficiency with the current process that needs rectifying?  Second, how does this proposal rectify it?  If it ain't broke... Worldtraveller 10:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your first question, check out this page. - Turnstep 15:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've read that discussion before, and it brings up general issues that people think are wrong with RfA. I don't see any specific problems in there, and I fail to see how this proposal addresses those. In fact, as I detailed above, I think this will introduce a lot more problems rather than solve them. Given the success of how RfA is running (granted, it's not perfect, but no system is perfect), we should advance cautiously; there's no pressing need to switch systems at this moment and cut short the discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I've created a map of all the pages involved in this discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/map. Hopefully it will be useful. Feel free to edit it. Turnstep 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I point out the irony of saying there are too many pages and then creating a new page? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  :) Turnstep 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many pages?

message: Perhaps we need to rewrite the guidelines in this proposal just a tad. We need to set a new treshhold that relies less on voting. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hopefully our neutral party is/are the bureaucrats. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How? 

message: I found it kind of stupid that some people "unsuspended" the RFA on grounds that it hadn't been discussed properly, since those people were unaware that it had been discussed for a long time. The most non-confusing way to transfer is to stop RFA for one week to get all old noms cleared out, and then have all new noms work in the new way. This change is no big deal! Why are so many people complaining about the way things are being changed, when they don't actually object to what it's being changed into? WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps you feel any better, I'm happy to point out that I actually do dislike what it's being changed into.  Specifically, as noted above, I feel the pre-poll discussion is a rather awkward and artificial distinction.  And yes, I do see it as something of a big deal since you intend to teach a whole population of a RFA voters a new way of doing things.  I have no objection to running concurrent noms for a while to ease into your system and judge reactions, but if you simply want to replace RFA with DFA, then I think you do need to have a broader and more widely advertised discussion of this specific proposal than has happened previously.  Dragons flight 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 1)I'm not stupid. 2)It hadn't, and hasn't been discussed for a long time. This proposal came out of the blue. 3)It is a big deal to fundamentally reform a major process such as creating admins. 4)I did, and partially do object to what it is being changed into and would prefer that minimization of objections be avoided. -Splashtalk 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the trust :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: >Radiant< and NoSeptember talk, the devil is in the details. Change can make a situation worse. I stated my objections to this specific draft. How could we do that earlier? It was still being written. I think this protocal is going to make the process worse not better. This isn't going to make candidates better prepared, a main objection on most Rfa. Requiring diffs will make it a big deal and potentially re-ignite more conflicts. Make more work for the editors polling voting (If it walk like a duck...). The solution needs to fix the real problems without making more of them. --FloNight 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't it warrant a trial, though? Personally, I don't think any more conflicts will arise here than in RFA. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (ec) The reason I urged our bureaucrats to "unsuspend" the RfA process was twofold: first, there had been little discussion about the specific proposal, and it certainly had not gained widespread support, and secondly, while I appreciate their boldness, two bureaucrats cannot simply suspend the RfA process if it's not in dire need of being stopped to test out a proposal. This site has always been run by community consensus, as the bureaucrats should know; it's always been discuss first and then implement. While I'm all for not being bureaucratic, we definitely need a lot more time to discuss this issue, and I've seen a significant number of people (in fact, maybe even a majority) oppose this proposal (including myself). We shouldn't be rushing into such a major change. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do we discuss it all over again?

message: Why not just move the comments section above the Support section, so everyone who wants to make an informed vote has to read any and all discussion before actually writing down Extreme puppy support ~~~~ or whatever? If we want to emphasize discussion, that seems to be an easy way to do it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that we want people to come back a second time. The first four or five voters see an empty comments section. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but any truly controversial nomination will see most of the discussion on the first day, so why not just hold off voting for the first day only, and then just keep the current process? I know that I don't vote in the first day of any nominations if I don't know the nominee, explicitly to wait for comments (if I know the nominee, I just vote anyways). However, dragging it down more than one day does not have as many benefits discussion-wise as you would expect. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd note that I attempted to gently prod people into commenting rather than voting by both putting the voting area the way at the bottom and with an html comment suggesting.  Note even one taker. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpler idea 

message: New users are not all ignoramuses. There seems to be a presumption here that they cannot possibly have anything to say that is worth listening to until they've been here for a month. This is a mixture of insult and elitism. Most people can spot a troll a mile off and they signally fail to disrupt RfA at present. I'm not sure I've seen a convincing case for suffrage other than "they don't know ****". My first RfA vote was about a month after I joined, but that's only because I didn't feel like it; I personally think I could have contributed usefully before the 30 day mark. -Splashtalk 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you, another reason why we should't have Suffrage is because it allows for some candidates to delete votes and then late on clam that it was a newb vote. I have all ready had some of my votes disappear even without this rule. Mjal 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then perhaps they are disappearing not because of the rule? — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite possible, there are many people who can contribute as sysops before 30 days on wikipedia, the problem is that it it almost impossible to judge if a user could be a good sysop until he or she contributed some material. Regarding the "new users" voting on RfA, they are highly likely to do it for the wrong reasons (e.g. after campaigning on an internet board or on a language wiki). abakharev 01:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we eliminating WP:AGF, too? --FloNight 01:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF means that we assume good faith of any individual editor and edit until there are compelling reasons to believe otherwise. It does not mean that we should build our policy on the false assumptions that bad faith edits and/or editors never exist. abakharev 01:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Know-nothing newbies

message: Maybe we should ask the participants in the discussion to introduce himself? Say answer to two questions: "What are your main contributions to Wikipedia?" and "How have you heard about the RfA?" abakharev 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Sounds good as long as it's non-confrontational. I think we should be as welcoming as possible to newbies. --FloNight 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is that going to help us elect better administrators? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, quite often, the comment mostly states an opinion: "Nice guy, I am sure he would not abuse the admin tools", "The guy has strong POV and is not suitable for the job, etc.". The opinions are of different reliability depending upon the experience and aspirations of the commenter ("I am a an admin and an author of such and such articles...", "I mostly work on a language Wiki, in the English one, I mostly enter the interwiki liks", "I am here to weed out of such and such POV, my main contribution is the revert war on ... and moving ... articles", etc.) as well as the purpose of the participation in RfA ("I am a regular here", "I got a message from the nominator", "I read recommendation to vote against the candidate on the internet board..."). Depending on the answers the opinion expressed may have a different merit abakharev 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice in theory. The last thing I want to do when voting for somebdy is saying "I am admin, from Moldova, I have been here for 15 months, I have that many edits, I am well-respected, at least I hope so, I was never blocked, I like math, and all in all, I support this person for admin!". Highly unlikely to work in practice. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can even make it a template. Why do you think it would not work? At the very least it would save us the red pixels on the outlining the possible sockpuppets abakharev 04:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, I imagine now the new rule:Every person willing to vote for admin must have his own template with brief bio! Your bio will be checked for accuracy before you are allowed to vote!. I find the proposal outlined in this section be a rule for its own sake. I don't think it will lead to better administrators. It will be just a burden. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I predict we will soon have a WP:RFVP (Request for Voting Privileges) page.  I'm composing my RfVP standards now ;-) There aren't that many true newbies finding their way here.  Anything over 100 edits and/or one week is overkill. NoSeptember talk 01:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you propose? Why not let anons vote then? — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Very few newbies come here. A troll would have to work a bit to get to 100 edits (Bling-chav never got there).  The one week rule makes sense so that non-english wikiers can't sign up to support their friend's RfA without time running out on them.  We don't need to create high newbie barriers until we get flooded by newbies. I see a lot of newbies get active very quick, if they catch the wiki bug. NoSeptember talk 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Introducing ourselves to newbies is always a good idea. If very new person comments or votes , a freindly welcome to DFA would be nice. It shouldn't be an interrogation, but a little chit-chat about their experience on Wikipedia would be fine. Prevent later questions about sock or meatpuppets. --FloNight 02:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ask participants in the discussion to introduce themselves? 

message: This new idea for RfA reform is no better or worse than any other idea we've had for RfA reform over the last many months. The difference here is that it has the weight of a couple of bureaucrats behind it. Problem is, what they have their weight behind has not been evaluated for its ability to solve the problems RfA has. That's because, once again, this idea has been spawned and developed without any prior identification of what is wrong with RfA. Coming up with new ideas and even implementing them is easy. Having the courage to figure out what is wrong first and then coming up with a plan of action that responds to the problems seems to be beyond the members of this community that are bent on reform. 
I know in response to this that some are going to cite User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform#What_is_not-so-good_about_the_existing_RFA.3F. But frankly, that was far from sufficient. Those comments are just one facet of determination of what is wrong and many of them lack basis. Here's a list of the problems noted on that page (and rebuttals as appropriate): 
#Low standards: Problem is, quite a few people think the standards are too high. Also note that at Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll#The_standards_for_becoming_an_admin_should_be_higher_than_they_are_now, more people were opposed to standards being higher than people in support of them being higher. 
#Unfair to veteran [non-admin] users: I provided data that disproved this notion. 
#Use of RFA as a soapbox: Ilyanep suggests people vote to make a point. Maybe, maybe not. Any basis in fact? I don't know and I suspect nobody does. I'd like to see cites of how these 'point' votes actually changed the outcome of an RfA. 
#Lack of efficiency: Bureaucrats have to make 5 edits to promote someone. One bureaucrat raised this point, another refuted it. Doesn't seem supported. 
#Impersonal: This boiled down to providing diffs/not providing diffs. From discussions here on this page, this is obviously controversial. 
#Maintenance (RfA always the subject of reform): This isn't a bad thing; it's a good thing. When we stop having discussion about how to make RfA better, there's possibly a problem. Silence doesn't mean it's perfect. 
#Lack of standards for voters: People are encouraged to use their own standards, and there is a standards page anyways. 
#Herd mindset: No way to fix this that is community friendly. 
#Focuses on wrong qualities: The comments on the RfA reform page seem to more or less agree. Maybe this is a real issue. This is hard to know without having any feedback on how admins are failing in their work as an admin, and how often it happens. Maybe RfA as it currently is filters out >90% of the admins who would fail. We don't know. 
#Waves of oppose votes based on one edit: This isn't necessarily a bad thing. RfA can be oriented towards finding what is wrong with a person than what is right. RfA is something of an investigation into whether a person is suited to being an admin. Finding negative evidence is part of that process. I don't think this should be removed as a factor, nor do I suspect there'd be much community concensus for doing so. 
#The voters: RfA reform lists a long littany of different problems with voters. As a whole, too diverse a set of statements to adequately answer or consider as a basis for RfA reform.
#A small group can manipulate the vote: Implies people working behind the scenes trying to make certain RfAs pass or fail. Campaigning in RfA is widely recognized as bad, and is looked upon very poorly. I don't see the effect. Some citations of example cases would be useful for clarifying this problem (if indeed it is a problem). 
#Encourages vote counting: Bureaucrats have, can, and will discount votes from perfectly well meaning contributors to RfA in pursuit of consensus. This is a critical function of bureaucrats in discerning consensus. It isn't an easy job, but the bureaucrats have done a pretty good job of it. This job is in direct opposition to vote counting, and it works. --Durin 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very good summary, and I endorse it. However, I don't think there are any problems with having a new process run parallel with the existing one, per above. Demi T/C 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't have any problem with a parallel process running. In fact, I think it would be a good thing to do if certain prerequisites are met. One of them is to identify what is wrong with RfA so you can fairly evaluate whether the parallel, proposed process has been capable of solving the identified issues and/or if it raises other significant problems. In essence, by creating a parallel process without prerequisites, we are designing an experiment with no control, no targeted observations, and no experiment management overview. The results we get from such a parallel process will be debated, sometimes hotly, and at best yield dubious results. --Durin 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Just try running a parallel process. Then see how many complaints you get. You can't have legitimate results when people choose to go to either DFA or RFA. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Until something is done along the lines I suggested above, it simply doesn't make sense to run an experiment. You might as well plow snow using a sledgehammer for all the good it will do. --Durin 05:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure what problem there would be with legitimacy; RfA doesn't seem so broken that its results could be described as illegitimate, and certainly this draft doesn't contain anything that would make me doubt the legitimacy of the results. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And once again, no list of "what is wrong" with RfA 

message: It's all well and good if a number of you have been working behind the scenes coming up with a new process to replace the current mechanism used at RfA. It's entirely possible you came up with an amazingly perfect method for evaluating RfA candidates (though I doubt that; see my comments in the prior section to this). But, suspending RfA (21:27 4 February 2006) and then telling all the people at RfA about it via the talk page (21:36 4 February 2006) isn't the way to sell this to the community.
If you want the community to back the reform proposal, then in the very least offer some time for public commentary on the plan that you come up with. What you have done is, in legislative terms, come up with a bill to be passed, discussed it in committee without public input, and attempted to pass it into law without the public even knowing it was about to happen. And you're surprised people are in opposition? You guys need a public relations officer :) --Durin 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want this to work, you'd better sell it better 

message: The only way to prevent sheep voting (the reason why DFA is being proposed) is to have votes be emailed to a bureaucrat for counting. People are not going to bother to discuss when they can simply vote. Voters could put Support/Oppose in the subject line, allowing for easy sorting by bureaucrats. This is probably the best solution, though I doubt it will ever become a reality. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-7 01:46
:I hope you're not serious. Nothing (realistic) can prevent sheep voting altogether, but we can hope to deter it. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If you want this to work, you'd better do it right

message: I'd propose that we change the template as follows. It's clearly more work, and would for the more contentious candidates dictate some very careful editing, but would hopefully result in a nice balanced picture.  Could we get a volounteer to let us just do this section on them, regardless of taking it to RfA?  Yes, Lar, we see your hand poking up... - brenneman(t)(c) 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bruning-brenneman method<sup><small>TM</small></sup> 

message: The following section is intended to allow editors unfamiliar with the nominee to make an informed decision regarding promotion.  Any editor is welcome to make additions, make changes, or remove items, as long as they it is unbiased and verifiabile.  Harmonious editing is essential, and use of the talk page highly recomended.  Please do not sign any comments in this section. Diffs are strongly encouraged, and presentation of items in chronological order is preffered.  
====Actions of nominee ====
AdminWannabe started editing on January of this year .  In his first month, AdminWannabe spent a lot of time on Article, which was subsequently promoted to featured article status. , ,  
In Feb, AdminWannabe engaged in personal attacks against User:IdiotMoronicTroll , as well as being involved in dispute with User:AnnoyingPerson on and responded in a calm and civil manner.
AdminWannabe hav frequently engaged in POC pushing on Cheese-related articles.
*If we're going to change the system but keep the basic 80%/counting framework, this suggestion is much more interesting than the current draft, at least. Much more potential to genuinely cause changes, but for the good or bad I don't know. It would be interesting to see a few of these done (I'd volunteer myself, though I have no interest in adminship). Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative structure 

message: AdminWannabe started editing on January of this year .  In his first month, AdminWannabe spent a lot of time on Article, which was subsequently promoted to featured article status. , ,  
In Feb, AdminWannabe engaged in personal attacks against User:IdiotMoronicTroll , as well as being involved in dispute with User:AnnoyingPerson on and responded in a calm and civil manner.
AdminWannabe hav frequently engaged in POC pushing on Cheese-related articles.
*If we're going to change the system but keep the basic 80%/counting framework, this suggestion is much more interesting than the current draft, at least. Much more potential to genuinely cause changes, but for the good or bad I don't know. It would be interesting to see a few of these done (I'd volunteer myself, though I have no interest in adminship). Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actions of nominee 

message: Just a quick note, as I haven't been following the thread. 
I think it's great to have a small period of discussion previous to "vote". I mean, if someone has waited a few months, can he not wait for 1 week more? I don't see what's wrong with having a previous discussion period before poll to enable us to make informed decissions. So I wonder, can anyone point me briefly what are the man concerns about (what I think is) this great idea? --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if an idea is for good (and not-voting-out of the blue and putting the crads on the table I think are) why ask for more reason? Indeed, the RFA disabling may have left some people at unease, I'm just hoping that people isn't opposing it just on the basis how was it attempted to be done. Thanks for your reply. --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  joining the discussion 

message: I've just added User:Lar as a test case, just to see how it might work.  He'd indicated that he was willing elsewhere, but I'm re-pinging him now. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test case