Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 68

message: With all this talk of the RFA process being broken, or needing revision, or needing less rubbish on the top, an important (or at least fun) milestone is creeping up on us: Wikipedia will soon have 1,000 Administrators on the English-language edition: there are 988, as of today.
For those of you who aren't already admins, this might be an interesting time to toss your name out there. For those of you who are already admins, maybe you've got someone you consider a great editor who would make a good candidate. Now might be the time to start asking.  Wouldn't it be cool to be able to say you were/nominated/helped promote the 1K Administrator? :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be priceless. ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How exciting!  and counting... -- nae'blis 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the countdown begin! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to bet that the 1000th admin will turn out to be a rouge admin. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think so? --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why would we want a huge bit of javacode just to generate the sequence of characters Expression error: unrecognised punctuation character ","?  Surely if we wanted that on the page, we could just type it in ourselves. --Tony Sidaway 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because. —Centrx→talk • 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because why? GeorgeMoney  (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duck season! --Durin 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh. Point taken. --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your comment seems on point considering that the admin count can be easily manipulated by any admin (by a simple desysopping request). We've had a lot of those recently. Any more admins willing to take the plunge? ;) NoSeptember 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem, based on the list of former administrators, that we passed #1000 promoted somewhere between 30 and 35 admins ago... -- nae'blis 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Judging by how things are going now, the 1000th admin is going to be either Netsnipe or Winhunter, depending on how Guinnog's RfA goes. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've got fifty bucks on Netsnipe. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do I foresee a bookmaking scandal at WP:RFA being exposed in the not so distant future? = P --   Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: <vader>Noooooooooooooooooo...!!!</vader> --   Netsnipe  ►  18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't ignore you, we haven't ignored all the other desysoppings and resysoppings that have happened of late.  =   NoSeptember 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to worry, you aren't. I only meant to say that you changed which RfA will be the one to make us hit #1000. As you can see from the red number above your post, you only raised the number to 997. The 1000th will happen in September. NoSeptember 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I could really screw with you guys and go ask a former admin in good standing like Kim Bruning if they want their bit back. Which way was the betting going again? jk folks, move along, nothing to see here. - Taxman Talk 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't Kim banking on his non-admin status to win a seat on the board? Even with 1000 admins, the non-admins completely outnumber us ;). NoSeptember 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My goal was to get a rush of nominations out of this thread and more admins as a result. I think that did not happen :(. NoSeptember 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it did, but no one wants to mention it, for fear of that causing people to oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 to go! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many people remember the one millionth user? They didn't make even one edit. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the one millionth article. If a user is defined by signing up, not editing, then the measurement was flawed. Can we honestly count X on Wheels or NoSeptember is a XX as legitimate users? NoSeptember 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure we can! user:NoSeptember is a XX is a great user. Strong support. I thought this user already was a user. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was hoping to promote xyrael, but Angela beat me to it by a few mins. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1000th Admin

message: Would anyone be interested in creating a chart showing admin growth, similar to  from German WP? NoSeptember 13:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be glad to. Do you know where I (or others) could find out how many articles existed on the English Wikipedia at a certain point in time? -- tariqabjotu 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a magic word for it, , and I'm sure some people were tracking it. I think the place to ask would be the Village Pump. It may be in the history of m:List of Wikipedias. There should be a page tracking the historical number and I'm sure there must be one. In June I started a page to track the admin count number because we need to track that trend too, not just have the current number. NoSeptember 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics has the monthly numbers for each year. As a note to the topic, if there is some good to come out of this section, that might be finding and nominating more good candidates. The admin to be promoted when the count of current admins passes 1000 (the same way we counted the millionth article) has not been nominated yet. Go find the best candidates now. :) - Taxman Talk 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My best attempt to create a similar graph is at :Image:En-admin-growth.png. I could not figure out how to get the line superimposed in Microsoft Excel; I'm doubting the creator of the German image even used Excel. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well done! NoSeptember 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: . I've updated the above graph to include a series for article count (it is possible in Excel, just not obvious!) If someone has got a count of users per month I'll happily product a similar version for that. Petros471 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting, because it appears to show that the ratio of articles to active admins is increasing -- surely a bad thing.   Mike Christie (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we used to routinely promote more than 1 admin per day, but now that rate has gone way down, so the fact that article growth outstrips admin growth is no surprise. NoSeptember 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Great piece of work. Well done! --Guinnog 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. The number of users per month is at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm -- nae'blis 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How would you compare it, though? There's :Image:RfAsPerWeek.png from November 2005, but it's only a small snapshot... maybe you could combine the data here with User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) somehow? It's such a small sample size, though... -- nae'blis 14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My admin stats chart includes RfAs rejected, which I get from my failed RfAs list. NoSeptember 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 
	And, as Petros requested, an admin vs. "users with 10+ contributions" graph. I didn't spend too much time looking for the total user count, but I suppose that's for the best as we've gone from one million registered users to two million registered users in six months (hmm... that's a bit strange and that certainly wouldn't make for a lovely graph). However, as Petros pointed out, that data might still be useful in that the creation of frivolous accounts can lead to more work for admins (if they're vandalism-only accounts or inappropriately named).
	So, here's an admin vs. "number of edits per month" graph; that should be more useful than a total registered account graph. Anyway, I suppose I'll step away from the graphs now... -- tariqabjotu 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very interesting, thanks. Now I can say 'we need more admins' with a bit more confidence... (As if the current at least 8 admin backlogs wasn't enough say so!) Even if you take into account bots doing more work (both increasing the edits per month count and taking *some* of the load off admin RC patrollers, it still seems pretty clear that we do need more admins promoted per month than is happening now. Petros471 16:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about this for a graph... a 4 line graph with the lines 1)articles, 2)edits, 3)users, 4)admins, and start it at January 2004 for better detail. NoSeptember 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That was exactly my reaction, too, Kim. If RfA continues as it's going, there is no way the Admins will ever be able to keep up with demand. The people !voting on RFA just don't understand that their !votes are causing larger and larger backlogs. Every day we reject another person who wants to help, we're just making the few Admins work harder, and more junk will get through. How do we know it's not getting through already? Firsfron of Ronchester 10:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There's this graph, but it needs some updating. However, based on the data already in the graph, I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance you can do a graph of number of policies (and if possible, kb of policy) &  number of administrators over time? It grows ever harder to learn everything one ought to learn to become an effective administrator.  I suspect policy is outstripping the guardians of policy implementation. Williamborg (Bill) 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes one more graph idea, but it is useful! All this is great but moreuseful might be a graph of number of articles per active admins. That would inconclusively show the need for more admins. I agree though with hwhat has been said above, we are currently only replacing admins that have retired or become inactive yet the article count is still increasing!It looks like my RFA is going to failk (well there wasnt much hope really), I'm not bitter just sad i cant help out in another way. I am certain I will be able to in th future but for now...  I also think that alot of experienced and rewgualr editors are not getting nominated for adminship - all of whom would pass with flying colours. And they don't dare self-nom as people dont seem to like that. It's a tricky situation all round and evantually I am sure it will work out, but for now things are in the balance. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I started a discussion at the Village Pump about whether some separation of deletion capability from other admin powers might be useful.  One response was that a generally finer granularity might be a good approach.  This could complicate RfA dramatically, of course, so there's a big downside.  However, it does seem to address the specialization issue, and might speed up the ability of certain editors to acquire certain bits.  What if Carnildo, whose current RfA is clearly going to fail, had been able to request just the deletion bit?  There might well have been a consensus to give him that.  If vandalfighters had the rollback bit, and more experienced vandalfighters had the blocking bit, and deletion reviewers had the deletion viewing bit -- would that help with keeping admin growth up?  I would think RfA would remain the primary venue, with the alternatives routes only taken for those whose experience or history did not make a successful RfA likely.  Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to revive Requests for rollback privileges. Personally, I think the atmosphere here at RFA has changed since it was first proposed, so with a bit of tweaking, it may have a shot this time. Titoxd(?!?) 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin Growth chart

message: why is voting entirely optional? so if by some random chance only 10 people vote within the week and 8 of them vote yes, itll go up for final review and passed. how does this ensure candidate is even the right person for admin duties? and how much of the edit count do you people take into account towards your vote, and what significance does edit count even mean towards administrative duties. why not require a percentage of the entire collection of admins and/or mandatory voting? why are special priviliges like admin rights only given to registered users? other than the reason of ip spoofing/changing68.161.183.243 00:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unlikely that only 10 will vote, and if it does happen it is up to the beaureaucrat to decide. Edit count is often taken into account, because it shows the person has been around a while and will be familiar with Wikipedia. Registered users can get the "mop" because they are seen as more reliable than an anonymous user. Hope this helps. --Alex (talk here) 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I think the reason is more to do with the fact that anonymous IP accounts are by definition unsafe (they can't be protected with a password, many are shared etc.). Like with registered users, I have encountered some fantastic anonymous users and I have encountered some real jerks - being registerd is neither here nor there. Mandatory voting would be nearly impossible to enact as there is no way to enforce it. Only allowing the admin pool would be divisive, giving the impression that administrators are some form of over-class and are vetter qualified to make judgements than everyone else. Rje 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but administrators are otherwise all users would be allowed to delete restore protect etc. normal average users are less likely able to judge the abilities of a would be administrator as well as administrative peers would be. mandatory voting as in the case will not proceed until a certain number of users and/or admins have voted. out of almost a thousand users granted administrative rights and thousands more users, a hundred votes is practically negligable. that said, how many of the thousand administrators do you believe is qualified to have admin rights? edit counts can also be easily falsified and the numbers themselves say very little other than how many times a person has decided to change anything, simply by themselves they say little on how well they know the guidelines and policies administrators have to watch over. i am also wondering if there has ever or will be a global administrative review? i know at a thousand admins it would be a hassle but if they were periodic, say every three years since a user has been granted admin rights, they would have to go up for a review if they wish to keep the rights. but then that would also fall under the same problem i see in various places, a lack of significant number of votes. 68.161.183.243 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The software running the site has no capacity to grant privledges to individual IP accounts.  Dragons flight 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With IPs changing now and then, that would be a problem. Michael 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about the process 

message: Why is this protected...? Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "this" I assume you mean the RfA page itself? I believe because it has been the target of considerable IP vandalism whenever it has been unprotected. Gwernol 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfA page has actually been the target of minimal vandalism; those supporting protection of this page tend to argue that anonymous users just don't need to edit it.  It was protected for two weeks in February, another two weeks in April, the month of June, and then just protected again last week on the basis of preventing 'fake RfA additions'.  See the protection log. ~ PseudoSudo 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition the vandalism problems, there is also no disadvantage to it. There is no reason why an IP or a 3-day old username would need to edit the main RfA page; everything except a few sentences is split off into (unprotected) subpages and it is not a problem that any minor edit to those few sentences would need to wait a few hours for an "established" user to add them (and for major ones they need discussion here first anyway). While the level of vandalism here would not warrant any longer-term protection of an article, this is not an article and in a way it is not even a policy or process page: it is a skeleton that links other, editable pages. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim of anonymous users having 'no reason' to edit the page is not valid.  First of all, active anonymous users are as entitled to submit nominations as any other user with a registered account is; please challenge me on that point if you don't buy it.  Second of all, personally I've never written up a nom but yet have still edited this page a half-dozen times, fixing errors and de-listing other noms for various reasons; there's routine maintenance work on this page to be done that can be performed by anyone who wants to.  We are a wiki that anyone can edit. ~ PseudoSudo 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: idealy anyone can edit. in practice so far that i have seen, admins step in and revert edits they dont like instead of attempting to fix or flag for someone else to68.161.183.243 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The nominated candidate can add their own RfA nomination to the main page, they have to accept the nomination and answer the questions anyway and it shouldn't be added before they agree. Anonymous users shouldn't be de-listing RfAs and it doesn't save any effort, someone would have to check that the de-listing was proper anyway, and it is not a problem if a malformed RfA is on the page for a few minutes or even hours. What are the errors and routine maintenance work you are talking about? I clicked on 25 random diffs, all of them were users adding their own nominations, well-established users removing bad-faith and malformed nominations (none of which would it have been appropriate for an anon to remove), and bureaucrats closing RfAs. The only two IP edits in that selection were one adding an RfA page that didn't exist, and another blanking the page. Note that if you mean fixing up something in the "About RfA" header, that is a separate, unprotected subpage. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected?

message: This is just to point out that we have a Bureaucrat nomination pending.  It seems to have been near-universally overlooked because RfB's are added to the bottom rather than the top of the RfA page (perhaps some sort of additional reference at the top of RfA would be worthwhile).  The RfB nomination raises some issues that are worthy of discussion and it would be good if more RfA participants weighed in both on the candidate and on the issues raised. Newyorkbrad 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our last RfB (Redux's) drew 80 opinions back in June and it too (IIRC) was in the same place on the RfA page. I don't think the position on the page is what's driving the low turnout for Ram-Man's RfB. I will note that the number of opinions on all RfAs seems to have dropped over the last few months - this is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but my impression is we were getting around 80 on most RfAs early in the summer and are now seeing 60 on average; I'd love to see the actual numbers. My guess is that not many people have strong opinions they want to express about this particular candidate, but maybe there are other factors? Gwernol 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just the location.  When I come to the RfA page, I generally look to the top of the list and see if there are any new additions.  Due to how scarce it is that someone is nominated for RfB, the location is a problem. Michael 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any problems with moving RfB's to the top? Since they're rare enough as it is the introtext can easily be ignored by users looking for new RfA's. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is "Requests for Bureaucratship" (RfB) does not have a forum of its own (and it really doesn't need it), but rather it "borrows" space in the Requests for Adminship (RfA) forum.  It would make little sense for people to come to RfA and find RfBs at the top -- it's not only the transclusion of the eventual RfBs, but also the instructions that would need to be moved.  And plus, there doesn't seem to be a practical need for any of this: first, and more importantly, because RfBs get included in the TOC just the same, so only someone with little experience might never see it -- of course anyone could miss it once or twice, but it runs for a week, so sooner or later they see it on the TOC; second, and this relates to the first reason,  because, normally, only more experienced users participate in RfBs, and they know their way around this forum well enough (or even have it watchlisted, so they notice the transclusion of the RfB).  Redux 13:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I didn't !vote on Ran-Man's RfB because I 1) didn't know the candidate and 2) was effectively neutral after reading the arguments presented, they didn't convince me either way. This could have been true for others, which would explain the (slightly) reduced number of !votes on that particular RfB. I'm pretty sure if a seriously popular (or unpopular) candidate appeared at the bottom of the page, people would find it! Petros471 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucrat nomination pending 

message: For an RFA put up a person's name, a tally, a support, an oppose and a neutral. Nothing else. (no sections headers either they are a pain.) NO other crap, no edit counts, no gushy noms, no questions, nothing. This way, if you know the person you can make an intelligent entry on the RFA. If you don't, you have to go research their qualifications on your own, and can't just sheep onto the info regurgitated for you by other editors. Anyone who comments "support, this guy is kewl!" will look like an idiot and it will be immediatley obvious who didn't do their homework. Let the info come out in the wash and people's comments. (OMG a *real* discussion!) Make it simple and FORCE PEOPLE TO THINK FOR ONCE. pschemp | talk 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes way too much sense to ever work. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Too easy to get around. People will just put up a lot of "oppose per" and "support per" and/or will just spend the few seconds it takes to get the edit counts. The current system for its problems is working well. JoshuaZ 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JoshuaZ, that's exactly what they do now. How would this make that worse? I think the current system is too full of crap one must wade through. pschemp | talk 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your idea, but I think if three people oppose in the beginning, most others will follow in suit instead of doing research for themselves. Michael 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, they do that now anyway. This can't stop people from being idiots totally, but at least people won't have to wade through paragraphs of crap to see it. pschemp | talk 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true. Michael 01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: RfA is not a vote, it's a discussion.  Simply posting votes is anti-Wikipedian culture.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the topic? Michael 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal was to not include anything but votes, obviously.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not if you read it. I didn't even use the word votes. Discussion happens in comments. pschemp | talk 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. And if you simply posted a comment without an attached discussion you'd look silly. This moves the discussion to the comments, and lets it form there, rather than having the discussion pre-digested and written for you in all of the other stuff. It promotes discussion, whereas now you just read the crap and say something, you don't even have to think. Its a simple and elegant way to organize and force discussion. pschemp | talk 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does your proposal say anything about posting to the Talk page?  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't, nor did I say it did. An "attached discussion" goes in the comment (what you are calling "votes"). the point is that when you make your comment in support or whichever, you support it with a discussion of your reasons right there. This makes listing edit counts, etc not needed as discussion takes place in the comments people post.pschemp | talk 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If this change were made, people would be forced to discuss rather than have everything laid out for them. Michael 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Zoe, people usually discuss on the RfA itself. Michael 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal makes absolutely no mention of discussion.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what is meant by "intelligent entry". One with reasons and facts attached to it. That is a discussion. pschemp | talk 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Zoe here, the proposal makes this sound like turning RfA into a blatant vote/poll with no mention of discussion (we were just supposed to assume that part?) Anyway, if someone doesn't discuss on the talk page, do we strike their uh... comment? If they don't discuss "enough" do we do the same? Who determines this? Are the b'crats (who'd be the most likely people to enforce this) even interested in this extra work, which would be considerable? Proposal leaves a lot of questions unanswered. And getting snarky with objecters doesn't help. --W.marsh 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting snarky. Sorry if you think I am. To me "intelligent entry" means one with a discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I absolutely oppose just recording a support/oppose nuetral without a discussion attached to it. The purpose of throwing out this idea is not play semantics with the words I wrote, but discuss an alternative method of doing things. Agian, my definition of "intelligent entry" is one that includes a discussion and reasoning. You also are confused as I never proposed putting anything on a talk page, but instead a comment would say (for example) Support - This user deserves to be an admin because of blah blah blah and I looked at this contrib and I think he shows a good attitude here and so on and so forth.  This creates no more work than what is already there. pschemp | talk 02:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly agree with pschemp here. The present system may encourage the candidate to make lengthy statements, partly to avoid being accused of "not needing the tools" or having "poor answers to questions". The nomination could become a joint enterprise, ie the nominator and the candidate fill in a form (template) together (no self-noms), using an adaptation of the current three-questions format, then other editors support oppose or neutral, with brief evidenced reasons. Anything beyond a few words, and any additional questions and discussion should go on the discussion page, and should be strongly encouraged. Keeping the !votes and the discussion separate will aid clarity, and insisting on reasoned !votes will aid collegiality. Of course you will still have the problem of "per nom" or "per xxx" contributions. They could, I suppose, be marked as endorsements below the nom or the other user's !vote. --Guinnog 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your proposal says, For an RFA put up a person's name, a tally, a support, an oppose and a neutral. Nothing else..  Where does all of this talk of opposing support/oppose/neutral without a discussion, "intelligent" or otherwise, come from?  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People put their explanations beside their support/oppose/neutral. Michael 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up.  Both you and pschemp are trying to force us to discuss something that you are not proposing.  Until you actually propose something that you claim you are proposing, there is no point in further discussion.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pschemp proposed it, and we clarified the idea.  It's an idea for a proposal.  You had questions. Michael 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't clarified anything.  You're both talking around the subject by trying to claim that you are proposing something which you are not proposing.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is my last posting on the subject until the "proposal" is rewritten.  pschemp's proposal said that there should be nothing on the RfA but a support, oppose, neutral.  When I, then W.marsh objected, you and he both suddenly started saying, "no, that isn't what the proposal says, we said there should be discussion on the Talk page."  No, that is what the proposal says, and you are not addressing my objections, you're merely attacking me for not being able to read your minds.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and that refers to the physical format of the RFA when it is put on the page. It doesn't mean that's the end of the process. Then people add their comments in the appropriate section with their discussion/reasoning. (That's an intelligent entry). I'm not attacking you for anything. pschemp | talk 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is attacking you, and what was said was that voters include the discussion beside their vote of support/oppose/neutral as it is now (i.e. Support - great vandal fighter).  That's the type of discussion, and as you know, people may also make discussions.  The proposal was mainly to do away with the listing of the edit count, standardized questions, nominations, etc. Michael 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said. Michael 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Would comments in the vein of "support per so-and-so" be prohibited? Are there really enough possible "original, reasoned" justifications to go around? Also, I'm afraid that under this system, users would still vote without research, but this time simply follow the crowd and make entirely uninformed votes, rather than drawing on the (admittedly limited) information about the user in the nomination and whatnot. — Dan | talk 04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But some users would do research, and those that do not may have a lesser desire to vote if they don't have something right in front of them that then requires little thought in deciding one's vote. Michael 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple RFA proposal

message: I just found an interesting link about me  Hope this proves my past points about my RFA's.. — Moe Epsilon 02:55 September 03 '06
:Which 'crat closed your RFA? This might be something to bring up with him. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, but to be fair, only two of the oppose !voters have less than 500 edits, meaning that the sockpuppetry was minimal, at best.  Ral315 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt many people on that site (other than the poster) have ever heard of you.  Look at the responses. Michael 16:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm...

message: While we're on the train of thought of "now for something completely different" for RfA, I thought I'd share something that came to mind recently: require that every !vote provide (at least) three diffs supporting their case for supporting/opposing/etc. In my mind, this would accomplish a few things, including:
#Force people to actually look through the user's contributions (odds are you'll have to click on at least 10 diffs to get 3 good/bad ones)
#Prevent a user from being condemned for one bad diff (mistakes can be forgiven; a pattern of bad edits should be investigated)
#Make arguments better supported and help keep it from becoming a vote (would help stop simple "Support" or "Oppose" votes with absolutely no other comment, and would stop opposes to which someone responds, "Can you provide an example of this?")
And probably a few other things generally relating to informed discussion. Not sure how practical this suggestion is, but I figured I'd at least throw it out there for discussion. It's also completely possible that I simply need some sleep, which I will try to do right after clicking "Save page" here. I look forward to everyone discussing and completely demolishing this idea. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After some time, everyone would list the same thing.  "Good user, good edit number, good talk page discussions."  How could you enforce this, and how could you make it so everything couldn't be summed up together.  On some RfAs, you may have one solid reason for opposing, in which case you may have difficulty coming up with several.  Repeated bad behavior in one field is one such example. Michael 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting idea and I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's in the Wikipedia spirit to force someone to participate a certain way.  Discussing RfA's are purely voluntary and one should be able to participate however one wants, be it a singular word (i.e. support, oppose, neutral) or a three hundred word summation the candidate. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 06:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Otherwise, imagine making someone give three reasons for opposing - not one, but three.  That would be awkward for both parties. Michael 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For supporting, providing a specific diff seems unnecessary. The qualifications for adminship concern a body of work. e.g., someone who's a long-time recent changes patroller has done a lot of good work that bears well on an adminship. A diff (or three) of vandalism reversion, however, is meaningless. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requiring diffs for !votes

message: I thought the concensus had been to move the tally count back to the top as before (see previous discussion). Agent 86 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is probably just because no one has modified  to reflect this. If you think consensus was to move the tallies, you might just consider boldly updating the template and seeing what happens. --W.marsh 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed. --Rory096 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supported. – Chacor 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should also noinclude the votes to make the page more compact. Guy 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Tallies Mark II

message: Why is it that Danny is the 112th support on an RFA he was later consulted on to make the final decision? -- nae'blis 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danny, why did you just use the revert button to remove Nae'blis' question? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That I had to revert a rollback by Danny of this is really, really disappointing. It's a perfectly valid question - we'd confront any other bureaucrat who voiced an opinion. – Chacor 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is most odd indeed. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've asked Danny for clarification, see User_talk:Danny#Was_this_intentional.3F.  Remember, rollback is a one-click process.  Let's just assume a simple mistake until told otherwise, eh?  Friday (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If it wasn't an accident, that's just messed up. There are a lot of irregularities going on here. :( Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is too strange to not be a 1-click accident.  As for the voting irregularity, it's a bit strange too (being the very last vote!), and I'd certainly like to hear a response.  — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is, of course, the third time that Danny has voted in support of an RfA and then been involved in the promotion (in fact he actually promoted the other two). -Splash - tk 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I trust a bureaucrat to not give their own vote any weight if they are involved in a decision.  In this case, 1 vote probably didn't mean much.  But it was a contentious vote and he obviously had to know that it would cause *some* amount of controversy.  It's bad form, and it looks like a final support vote was just thrown in at the end to bias or legitimize the result.  I'm not saying that was the intention, only how it looks.  Of course the last vote could have been added well before he knew he would be helping taxman with the result, I don't know.  — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. This would have looked much better if that hadn't happened. In the future it would be strongly appreciated if crats and Danny did not vote especially if they were considering some more or less out of process implementation anyways. JoshuaZ 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "We'd confront any other bureaucrat who voiced an opinion" -- this is fast becoming a witch hunt. I have closed many RFAs in which I voted, often with the opposite outcome of that for which I voted. This is true of almost all the bureaucrats, whose having been chosen by the community to do this job reflects their ability to participate in the process and decide its outcome impartially. — Dan | talk 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, let me rephrase that to any bureaucrat who voiced an opinion in the direction of the final result. There have been cases in the recent past where crats have gotten too involved in RFAs. – Chacor 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This was hardly a typical RfA and your examples do not seem that relevant to this case. Bureaucrats should be astute enough to realise when their actions could be seen as a conflict of interest, whether that is the case or not.  One can easily cite AGF but that is a weak argument when a little foresight could have predicted this mess. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * At least, a damn good explanation ;-). <paranoia mode off> --Ligulem 08:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Lol! Three simultaneous phone calls. Someone should do a cartoon... Carcharoth 09:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah. I like the part "I did not see what I was clicking" most ;-) (but it was a damn good click ;-). I wish I would be able to draw this cartoon, really. I would write that sentence in the cartoon. (Now, I'm finally going to edit the encyclopedia, promised. Cheers.) --Ligulem 09:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were the right people making the final decision? 

message: '4'. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
A'. Of course. Transparency is very important for a process like this that affects the community, so keeping conversation among bureaucrats, but open to review is an important part of that.
Didn't last long, unfortunately. -Splash - tk 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Touche. I can take my licks. In light of that statement I have made a mistake, no buts about that point. I just knew there were problems with some of the votes in Carnildo's RfA and I instinctively sought out trusted people. Even though I didn't intentionally break that pledge, that doesn't change the fact that I did different from what I said I would. However, I would like to know how you think your present politicking is helping move the project forward. So you didn't like the decision, but that doesn't also mean that your present efforts are helping either. - Taxman Talk 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'm never really of the mind that, when seeing something obviously wrong, one should simple sew up ones mouth for fear of upsetting someone. And before we broaden this out, I trust you aren't saying that everyone should simply fall in line because, hey, we're not changing anything no matter what you say. -Splash - tk 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That didn't answer what I asked. I gave you a straight answer and I think it would be only fair for you to give one. And yes, that would be correct that's not what I'm saying. It's more the manner in which you are approaching your efforts that is the problem and I'd like to know how you think it is valuable for the project to approach it the way you are. - Taxman Talk 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had been reasonably direct. Anyway. Overlooking the "project" implications, because tonight is not a night I feel like writing articles, when you go and make wacky decisions you can expect to be held quite thoroughly to account for them. When the reason changes from "love and forgiveness" to "it's the sockpuppets, duh" (with the obligatory detour through "it's not a vote") then the bullet dodging needs to straightened out. How does this help the "project"? By, hopefully, making sure that the bureaucracy considers itself rather more thoroughly and carefully in future, that it knows it will be held firmly to account and thus that the admins they promote are those who will help the project. If they go promoting wacky RfAs, we'll get admins that harm the project (like Carnildo did). This particular subsection is hard on you, certainly, but if in future you stick to that promise then that too will have helped the project by making sure that thunderstorms aren't whipped out of the bad on a moment's notice. -Splash - tk 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don' mind being taken to task for a clear mistake. What I do mind is the personal attacks and the outright abrasive method with which you have conducted yourself. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The real issue here is not politeness but ACCOUNTABILITY, both yours and Carnildo's. Now that you admit it was a "clear mistake", would you be willing to resign for it?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that question, in light of Taxman's pledge when he ran for bcat.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The clear mistake I was referring to was forgetting about the pledge from my RfB and that should have been clear from this section. The mistake was not in promoting Carnildo. As we said before we believed there were enough extenuating circumstances to make promoting Carnildo the right thing to do. That decision was not solely my own. I don't say that to deflect criticism, because I stand by the decision, but so that people remember three bureaucrats discussed that RfA and came to the same conclusion (incidentally at least one more did after too). It was not something I just decided on a whim to do. So no, I don't think the community or the most important thing, the encyclopedia, would be better served by resigning. I did what I did in the best interests of the project and I feel good about that. - Taxman Talk 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you offer nothing but spin. No apologies, no admission of wrong-doing. The self-same arrogance of power which caused so many woes for poor Carnildo. At the very least, Taxman, you broke your promise...Splash has done an outstanding job catching and calling you on it. If your word is worth anything at all, if you have any sense of decency or honor left, you would resign.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxman has already admitted the mistake and apologized for it, numerous times.  What else is there to say?  Unless the only "apology" that is acceptable is a resignation, there has already been one.  Taxman is a great bureaucrat.  He shouldn't resign.  If you have an issue with him, take it up in an official channel (such as ArbCom, etc.), not on this page.  Obviously the answer to the question is "No", he won't resign.  There is no need to ask it again. I voted against Carnildo, but it is important to separate my opinion of the decision with that of this totally separate admitted mistake.  The two issues must be judged independently to be fair and unbiased. -- RM 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxman's RfB promise

message: I removed this comment because at the time, it was more relevant to the overall concept of Arbcom and how they desysop admins. While I voted to support Carnildo (and I am very sympathetic to how difficult it is dfor desysopped admins to be resysopped), I wasn't happy with how this RfA was closed and in light of what happened here, I don't think Carnildo should have been subjected to an RfA (actually, two RfAs) in the first place. I really don't think RfA is the place to get these users resysopped. If Arbcom decided to desysop an admin, they should decide whether to resysop that user in a certain amount of time. Does this mean we should immediately desysop Carnildo? I would tentatively say no. This whole thing is a lesson... first of all, if Arbcom expects the desysop of an admin to be temporary, they shouldn't subject that former admin to an RfA, and instead just perform their own review of that former admin after a certain period of time. If arbcom expects the desysop of an admin to be permanent, then say so. I think this is probably more of a lesson to Arbcom and how they should hand out admin sanctions. Carnildo's case shows an example of how the sanctions can be wrong, and how the RfA can be a total mess. Hopefully it will help Arbcom to further refine how they hand out sanctions. --Deathphoenix ʕ 07:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let Arbcom resysop an Arbcom-desysopped user

message: Instead of all this choosing one side or another, can't we just leave the answer to the "Is RFA a vote?" question deliberately vague and unanswered? We cannot really say that it is a vote, like what Tony Sidaway said, but nor can we truthfully say that this is not a vote. It's only a suggestion. --physicq210 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another solution?

message: As you can see, she already has the mop :-) Kim Bruning 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe!  Can we put this into ? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Support, if she cleans up my userpage, which is a mess! ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not mind, the current admin logo is derived from the copyrighted Wikipedia logo, and we generaly tell people they can't use that kind of things on userpages, even with permission. Then again not everyone like anime... --Sherool (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe adding Wikipe-tan to the  notice is better for creating a less stressing moment :-) -- ReyBrujo 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the CVU people will be too happy if you co opt thier logo for adminship.Geni 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not CVU only, CVU already coopted it from something else, I believe it was created as a generic Wikipedia logo.--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally for WP:ANIME, actually; but then became used in a more generic way (WP:TAN). Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this version was requested for the CVU logo see this.Geni 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't matter unless the CVU decides to use the raw image, which I highly doubt will be the case; all their logos so far have been defined by the background crossed-circle design moreso than by what happens to be in the middle. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipe-tan for admin! 

message: Sorry to clutter an over-long page with a personal comment, but I'm off to bed and I had to say: this is easily the saddest day I've had on the Wiki. I had one notable success editing an article today, and at the same time watched a worse-than-usual shitstorm here for hours and three editors leave. It's just awful what we come up with sometimes—the "good editors", as much as anyone else. This isn't a yea or nay on the above debate, just an observation. Marskell 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a bit luckier. I managed to write Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) and Svensky Monastery before I was blocked for three hours for thoughts expressed above and, what is even more amusing, blocked by an editor whom I dared to criticise. Several letters I received today describe the current situation in English Wikipedia as "sinister" and "totalitarian". At least I don't remember a day when some of the most productive members of the community (Giano, ALoan, etc) were told as clearly as today that they are not needed in this project, as long as they don't support the "party line" and its favourites like Carnildo. In such days, our old Russian Wikipedia seems like a paradise... --Ghirla -трёп- 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 September 

message: Just an FYI, the edit summary said that the nom only had 2 edits.  I checked, and User:Jarlaxle Artemis was a an impersonator. An apparent accidental (though understandable) typo by the nominator.  However, User:JarlaxleArtemis has apparently declined as per: this statement on his  talk page - jc37 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JarlaxleArtemis

message: In the user rights log:
*19:45, 8 August 2006 Raul654 (Talk | contribs | block) changed User:Doc glasgow's rights from (none) to sysop
As far as I remember Doc glasgow voluntarily gave up adminship after his vandalism spree. Now he gets his bit back without any RfA, which I'm sure he'd have failed. Any ideas how that happened?  Grue  18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc gave up his adminship in good standing, and so was entitled to request it back without an RfA.  And so he did.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In good standing? He gave up his adminship after a flurry of vandalism!  Grue  18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was pissed off, and wanted to go out with a bang, I'm sure many of us have felt like that, it really was actually quite funny. Martin 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone voluntarily gives up adminship, they should get it back upon request.  If people were to start using voluntary desysopping as a means of getting out of trouble, there'd be grounds for concern, but as it is, I don't see why we'd worry about this.  Friday (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Whether he is stable enough to continue as administrator, is another matter. However, I default to good faith: it is similar to requesting being blocked to cool down while influenced by conflicting emotions, or to take a break to study. -- ReyBrujo 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether he's "stable" enough?  What does that mean?  I find it kind of funny that nobody even notices he got adminship back for over a month because he hasn't done anything wrong.  And now, a month later, it somehow becomes an issue?  I don't think so.  --Cyde Weys 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Syops should be good moel Wikipedians.  Redirecting DRV into Tony Sidaway's user talk page is something I don't consider model. Hbdragon88 06:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No view on this case, but out of curiosity, where do I find the "user rights log"? Newyorkbrad 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. -- ReyBrujo 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the user's contributions, and click on log. Michael 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both of you. (Interestingly, the log seems to list only upgrades, not downgrades.) Newyorkbrad 19:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because desysopping can only be done by stewards, and thus is shown on the meta rights log.  --Cyde Weys 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't quite true but no matter.Geni 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Who else can desysop? Developers, sure, by editing the database, but that doesn't happen. What are you referring to? — Dan | talk 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this.Geni 12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe that's possible anymore.  Ral315 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I noticed something strange 

message: Just to let people know, I've added a new comment there. Please reply on that page. Petros471 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/nominate]] 

message: I'm writing this to rectify something that I wrote in a couple of edit summaries (which cannot be altered): I accidentaly misread the deadline on Ram-Man's RfB, which was September 7, and not September 9, as I accidentaly read it.  This means that, when the RfB was to close normally (which was noted by Ram-Man and Voice of All at the appropriate time), I misread a withdrawal.  I have explained the situation in detail to Ram-Man in his talk page, so feel free to read it.  But I wanted to go on the record and say that Ram-Man did not withdraw, and his RfB ran its full term.I have assessed the end result as I would normally at a regular closing time, and I've arrived at the following result: insufficient support consensus to promote to Bureaucratship.  I arrived at a final result where 87% of the participants supported a promotion, which is below what is required for promotion to Bureaucratship, which is higher than for Adminship.  Redux 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've accepted this as a simple mistake, so let's not have any undue fuss over this (in light of the Carnildo decision and other recent criticisms of the process).  I'm thankful for all the comments made during the RfB (and I won't be spamming anyone's talk pages about it either).  I'll work on addressing the concerns raised, and I may be back again later for another attempt. -- RM 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're taking it in the ideal way. - Taxman Talk 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well of course.  The way I see it is when I initially proposed the idea of becoming a "specialist bureaucrat", I didn't know what to expect.  I don't think anyone else has ever done that.  So I was both somewhat surprised by the amount of criticism (mainly citing lack of RfA and AfD experience), but on the flip side I was surprised that I did as well as I did at 87%.  I assumed from the start that this could be contentious.  -- RM 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Who knew, but I became an admin with 6 unanimous informal votes.  My have times changed in just over 3 years. -- RM 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rectification 

message: New (proposed) policy by User:Tony Sidaway. Looks like redundant staff to me abakharev 09:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a vote]] 

message: (Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everyking). Everyking's RFA has been open for ten hours only. Because the matter is controversial, we should expect people who have been involved in some way in these matters to vote early. However, I believe that the RFA should stay open longer to allow the community at large to voice their opinion, not only the few people who happened to be online in these ten hours. Tony Sidaway invoked WP:SNOWBALL when unlisting, but I don't think it has anything to do with the snowball clause at this point. I propose relisting it and letting it run for at least another full day, if not longer. — mark ✎ 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crossposting is probably not the best thing to do, let's keep the discussion in one place only. Thanks! — mark ✎ 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although there is a related discussion at WP:BN as well. NoSeptember 12:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA closed far too early 

message: So I can comment without supporting/opposeing or being neutral. Like I can on AFD. The current one appears to be for the various edit count things only.Geni 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is a comment section, but like Tony said, alot of clutter is there. Yanksox 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Out of curiousity, Geni, what sort of comments are you thinking of that couldn't be covered in a reply to a support/oppose/neutral, or in a question to the candidate, or on the candidate's talk page, or on the rfa's talkpage?  I understand what you mean about the current comments section, and I'm not rejecting the idea of de-cluttering it; I just can't think of an example of a comment that doesn't already have a reasonable place (or two, or three.) Picaroon9288 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: things simular to nomination statements. Info that I think is important in a particular case. Basicialy where I want to say stuff while resevering judgement on the candidate.Geni 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of the redesign I proposed was to move the comment section to the top.  This certainly was not to move up the edit counts and statistics, it was to encourage its use for discussion. (Until recently, of course, it was much easier because we didn't have huge tables of edit counts, just a line, but now edit counts are on the talk page, so it should be easier.)  Feel free to comment in the comments section; if you start doing it, hopefully others will also. --Rory096 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've used the comments section a couple of times to make comments. See the RfA for Runcorn. If you put your comment at the bottom of the section it sits nicely directly above the support section, in the current design. Tyrenius 06:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I want a comment section

message: While the above probably goes too far in eliminating bureaucrat discretion, one area I think RFA could benefit from would be to increase the frequency with which B'crats use their discretion to extend to time an RfA is ongoing, as long as discussion/consensus is still developing. A lot of RfAs are dead in the water by the time the seventh day comes around, but sometimes they are still developing a sense of what the community feels, and another day or two, or even twelve hours, sometimes, would give some people the freedom to change their mind, consider an 11th-hour comment/discovery, and the like. Just my thought. -- nae'blis 19:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: extending time for community consensus

message: I have noted with concern that some people have hinted that bureaucrats are the final deciders of who is fit for adminship, and that they have some sort of veto over promoting particular people. This is most definitely not the case. Bureaucrats' opinions are worth nothing more than other admins or, indeed, non-admin members of the Wikipedia community. Users who are promoted to bureaucrat status by the community are given that role for technical purposes, not as some special executive role with power to overrule "community consensus". Until the process is changed, the votes on RfA are taken to represent community consensus, and it is a dereliction of their duties to the community for bureaucrats to ignore an RfA's result. The only ones who can overrule such a representation of consensus are the ArbCom and Office, and if they want to do so they should do so explicitly and transparently. - Mark 05:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may believe that's the case; you may think that should be the case;  I may tend to agree with you.  But I wouldn't bet against a change in process being effected by the 'crats themselves, arbcom, Jimmy Wales, or the Foundation, rather than necessarily with explicit community approval, given the mess that policy-making is in, and the formal suspension of logic at WP:IAR.  Alai 07:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ignore all rules does require logic, thanks :-) Kim Bruning 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR defeats logic by its present construction.  Whether logic would be required in either devising or applying a different version that wasn't essentially a restatement of the Epimenides paradox is an interesting hypothetical.  (Its current policy box stating its "deep, subtle meaning" seems to be more or less an exercise in waving hands desparately and intoning "ignore the man behind the curtain".)  A more accurate statement as to what it requires would be an opinion as to what's necessary to improve or maintain WP, and a sufficiently large hammer to beat down the amount of opposition engendered thereby.  Alai 12:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I tend to feel that anything here that could be described as having a "deep, subtle meaning" is so obscure as to be useless within the context of a global effort to build an encyclopedia. If a concept can not be described in clear, precise terms that can be understood across cultures, national borders, and continents, then its usefulness is extremely suspect. --Durin 12:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IAR is understood across cultures. Just not by everyone. It's to do with being a Mapper or a Packer . Stephen B Streater 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, it's to do with poor governance being passed off as poor understanding on the part of those that would like a bit more transparency.  This is not an "inventiveness" issue, this is a "my judgement trumps your judgement" issue.  Alai 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue for me is how to try out new types of things. The original visionaries are mappers, but the packers are in a huge majority and the rules they create are limited and limiting. The rules are written by people who think they have covered every eventuality. But lack of foresight always means some things are beyond the scope of the rules. Stephen B Streater 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the ruleset is both imperfect and incomplete, so something like IAR that enables dealing with unforeseen circumstances is indeed essential.  But that's not the problem with the current policy-negating policy:  it's a lack of any expression of determining consensus, or of documenting the circumstance that led to the exception, in order that others can see the basis for it, and go forth and do likewise (or not).  Rather, it encourages the mentality that there are some people that have licence to unilaterally implement their "common-sense", overriding both any past or present documented practice, or other people's common sense.  Alai 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Way too many asterisks :P) IAR should only be used when a process/policy is damaging the encyclopedia, which really isn't happening here. There is no reason to use it in order to make one person's opinion worth more than any other. That's an abuse of power. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I wouldn't support overriding a genuine consensus in an irreversible way. But this is a wiki, so if an experiment doesn't work out, everything can be fixed. The important thing is to remain on good terms as personal relationships are harder to fix up. IAR must come with a willingness to engage and listen on all sides. Existing process should be the beginning not the end. Stephen B Streater 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of bureaucrats in RfA 

message: August 2006 RfA in Review                                                	This month                                                               	Last month                                                               	Feb-Jul
New RfAs posted:                                                         	72                                                                       	78                                                                       	459
Successful RfAs:                                                         	27 (38%)                                                                 	26 (33%)                                                                 	183 (40%)
Early withdrawn RfAs:                                                    	29 (40%)                                                                 	38 (49%)                                                                 	191 (42%)
Self nominations:                                                        	38 (53%)                                                                 	39 (50%)                                                                 	216 (47%)
Noms with <1000 edits:                                                   	17 (24%)                                                                 	19 (24%)                                                                 	99 (22%)
Average number of votes per successful RfA:                              	76                                                                       	97                                                                       	86
Average number of votes per unsuccessful RfA:1                           	62                                                                       	79                                                                       	71
Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...
All RfAs                                                                 	38%                                                                      	33%                                                                      	40%
>1000 edits                                                              	49%                                                                      	44%                                                                      	51%
>2000 edits                                                              	55%                                                                      	48%                                                                      	57%
>3000 edits                                                              	61%                                                                      	53%                                                                      	62%
>4000 edits                                                              	67%                                                                      	49%                                                                      	61%
>5000 edits                                                              	67%                                                                      	50%                                                                      	61%
Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...
>2 months                                                                	41%                                                                      	35%                                                                      	43%
>4 months                                                                	47%                                                                      	38%                                                                      	46%
>6 months                                                                	53%                                                                      	42%                                                                      	49%
Average edit count of successful noms:                                   	7499                                                                     	6776                                                                     	6222
Average edit count of unsuccessful noms:                                 	3888                                                                     	3262                                                                     	3052
:1 - Unsuccessful nominations only includes those nominations that were not withdrawn early and were not successful. This is the smallest subset of RfAs, typically comprising less than 20% of all RfAs. 
--Durin 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that perhaps experience > x months might actually reduce the chance of an RFA succeeding again. I don't know, but at a guess, try x~=12? Could you take a look? Kim Bruning 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Over the last 6 months, there have been 156 nominations for people with >1 year of experience. Of those, 77 were successful for a rate of 49%. During the same time period, there were the same number of nominations for people with >.5 year and <1 year of experience. 74 were successful, for a rate of 47%. Others have noted a perceived drop off in success rates as experience/edit counts become high. Every analysis of the data that I've ever done has not supported this perception. Instead, what happens is past a certain point, the success rates plateau. --Durin 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the most interesting statistic there is the drop in average votes. Could you put together statistics of average number of votes in a successful nom and average for an unsuccessful nom? It looks like less people voting means more promotions, although it could easilly be the converse that is true, or a combination of both. --Tango 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've added the data to the table. See the note as well. Also note that doing average number of votes per withdrawn RfA would not be useful as the number of votes on withdrawn nominations varies significantly based on how rapidly they were withdrawn. --Durin 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *:Thanks! Interestingly, it's the opposite of what I was expecting (although it might be skewed by the withdrawals). Successful RFA's get more votes, so it would seem the increase in promotions and the drop in average votes are unrelated. Maybe lots of RFA-regulars were away on holiday in August and it's nothing more interesting than that... --Tango 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *: Thank you, Durin, for posting these very interesting stats. --Guinnog 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 2006 WP:RFA in Review 

message: Just a simple one-place note of thanks for all those who were involved in my recent RfA: Thank you!
Best wishes,
David Kernow 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-place thanks for RfA involvement 

message: made a stat template  that I have added the the tacher request for a live example, please tell me if it's fine. →AzaToth 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is this confusing to read with all the brackets and whatnot, it's bad because it stresses percentages.  This isn't a vote, and even if it were, the crats aren't stupid, they can figure it out- percentages aren't important to anybody but them. The old tally was preferable to this one (though no tally is all is even better). --Rory096 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Crats should be given room to decide a number of things (whether very new accounts should be discarded or not, the cutoff for a successful RFA, etc...).  Not a vote.  --Interiot 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stat template 

message: There seem to be some people discontented about RFA. I haven't looked into the particulars (yet?) but I figured it might be interesting to see how the other Wikipedias handle the issue. As such, I have attempted to compile and translate a bunch of admin facts, and listed them at Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. I'm not sure if this is useful or just trivial data, but there are some interesting differences that people may want to read about. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 14:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages