Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship process

message: First of all, we should remove all traces of a voting system. The reason for no time limit is so that no one stir blind on that, the time the bcrat need is the important. I think also that the bcrat should have full power to deny or approve a nomination, that way there is no reason for anyone to try to vote. →AzaToth 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: I think you're leaving the role of bureaucrats to be quite vague. For example - what defines "frivolous" reasons of opposition, and with what discretion should a bureaucrat ignore comment(s) over others? What are the positives of a timewise open-ended RfA, as opposed to those lasting 7 days? Rama's arrow 21:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe if there is an obvious concensus after 7 days to support, then the bureaucrat should close. If there is no concensus, then the bureaucrat should use their own judgement whether to let it continue or not. If the obvious concensus is oppose, then a bureaucrat should close when they see fit (i.e. in order to prevent a pile-on). --Alex (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it's a tricky question. The reason for no time limit, is that I don't want the process to depend on a set date, so instead it can be a free discussion spanning a few days to for example two weeks if that's necissary. We could thou ass a guideline that a process must at least be open for three days, but no more than 14 days. →AzaToth 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is, what makes a definite oppose consensus? Each oppose in the present system equals 4 supports. Rama's arrow 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of bureaucrats 

message: I am personally against forcing editors to edit things they don't want to just to become an admin, and help other users. It's bordering on ridiculous. Just my opinion though, Highway Daytrippers 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 99% I don't think saying that one whom made 2000 edits is a better to be admin than someone who have made 1500 edits. →AzaToth 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The quality of individual edits matters a lot. Take Jimbo Wales - he's got like 2,000 edits, yet we hang on to his every edit. The contributions should be diverse, with a low edits/page ratio. Rama's arrow 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometime ago, I did propose a floor for RfA nomins, based on the fact that anybody with just 1,000 edits and less than 3 months experience was being rejected. In the beginning of the project, it was different. Now with 1.5 million users and 1 million articles, it doesn't hurt to heighten standards. Rama's arrow 00:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment: Well, there are now more than two million registered users on this project. Visit Wikipedia statistics. Although I must admit that about 20 percent of them are regular editors. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin jobs 

message: Personnally, I'm not too thrilled by the first criterion. I think that many WikiGnomes have shown to be tremendously valuable at doing underground work, wikifying, categorizing, referencing, merging and whatnot. Some of these guys would make fine admins and I hate the idea of someone being discarded on the basis that he has been flying under the radar. I have to say that there are a few well-known editors on Wikipedia which I would not support in RfAs. More generally, there's a danger in setting criteria in stone. 
Actually, sorry if that's a stupid question but why do we feel that the current proposal is needed? Is there really a concern that the current RfA process needs to be significantly altered? Pascal.Tesson 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on your point. As for the proposal, it doesn't hurt to chew the fat. Maybe something good will come out of it. Rama's arrow 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Chew away! I have to agree that the discussion on this talk page is quite interesting. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have striked out that "criteria". As I only have had a vauge clue exactly what criteria an nominee should adhere to, my suggestions might not have been the best one, please if you can came up with some better criterias, I would be happy. →AzaToth 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose "well known by other users" 

message: I believe that the RfA process is under many pressures partly because there is no similar organized way to hold admins accountable for their actions or desysopp them if necessary. If we answer this latter question, we will see more people ready to say "adminship is no big deal." The consensus issue will also become less sensitive, and I'm sure that stuff like the Carnildo affair won't happen. To get the ball rollin':
#Blocks are serious, last resort measures. It can be useful to desysopp an admin who has been blocked (justifiably) by a fellow admin, but for just like a week or so to allow him/her to cool off - this is different than the "cool off" mandated by blocks themselves. The second block should result in a 30-day "cool off," and the third block should lead to desysopping. 
#WP:ANI should also become a place where admins can receive advice and suggestions on how to perform potentially sensitive tasks. There are many admins who aren't abusive but simply make a mistake - they need immediate guidance of more experienced admins. 
#Maybe a bureaucrat's committee can be created (subordinate to ArbCom) to look into cases concerning proposal no. 1 and cases of serious admin abuse. Rama's arrow 10:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, this process should not revolve around the question of desysopping. Rather how admins can improve and learn. The same for RfA - every productive editor is a prospective admin, so the process should encourage learning instead of creating a contest, vote-like atmosphere. Rama's arrow 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin accountability 

message: I can't imagine b'crats like this proposal -- it puts enormous pressure on them, as they are given discretion over essentially everything regarding a nomination.  This is a terrible idea, and if this process passes, trust in the admin corps will degenerate dramatically. Xoloz 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Way too much power for b'crats