Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 84

message: I must admit that it is very frustrating looking at the answers that some people give as to why others do not rate to be admins.  They say in order to be an admin you "MUST" know about this, this and this.  I say B.S.  This should be a vote on fair and trustowrthy editors who have shown a true dedication to the project.  It is safe to say that people did not spend months to years editing, reverting and discussing just to become dicks the first day they get extra tools.  If they do, then there is a system in place to deal with that 0.001%.  So what if they have not been active in AfD or CfD for the last few months or ever.  If they are good editors then in time they might migrate there, learn the rules of the road and help out.  Will anyone here not deny that their editing habits change over time depending on where they are bouncing around?  We should be voting on an individual's performance, fairness, etc...  Not the fact that they don't spend months going through image copyright tags.  Give them time as admins and almost all will flourish in their roles.  Vote the person and their performance and let them grow.  They do not need to be experts at everything from day one.--Looper5920 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for others, but I judge based on their experience in the areas which they say they will contribute in. So while an admin doesn't have to participate in AfDs (this RfA seems to be going very well, for instance), if they then say they will start closing them, I think there's reason for concern. For me, it's a two-stage decision: firstly, do I trust this user enough to know that they won't abuse the tools; secondly, has this editor demonstrated competence to show that they won't (accidentally) misuse the tools. Trebor 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think it's more dangerous to have an admin who blocks a user too hastily than to have one who closes XfD's wrongly. Most people won't bother closing XfD's unless they know what they are doing. And we don't have to prove anything to be an editor - some things can be learned on the job. Xiner (talk, email) 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't forget, this is just a hobby 

message: One of the questions says "What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out :Category:Wikipedia backlog and :Category:Administrative backlog". Candidates who actually check out :Category:Wikipedia backlog and base their answer on that will automatically attract oppose votes ("those are not sysop chores!"). Can we stop asking people to check out a backlog when they'll be opposed if they say they want to tackle it? What the question tests is mostly whether the candidate has lurked at WP:RFA and knows what people expect; we should try to encourage honesty instead. Can we remove the non-admin backlog from the question? Kusma (討論) 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. ViridaeTalk 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I've never actually clicked on that link - I always assumed it linked to the admin backlog. Kill it! ;) Glen 10:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always assumed it was either a nod to the people who think adminship should be about editing, or a hint to candidates about how they could demonstrate that they should have the tools. It's pretty inappropriate anyway, though; it would make a lot more sense on the Community portal (I check... it's there already, on Template:Opentask). --ais523 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Kusma (討論) 10:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's asking what they want to do as an admin though; any user can do cleanup. Majorly (o rly?) 11:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless we occasionally see people vote "Oppose. Aha! You didn't list any (or enough) admin tasks in your answer to Q1!". I guess that's where the "trick question" thing comes in... --W.marsh 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As one of those "Aha!" people, I didn't read it as a trick question.  But I do think a more straightforward question about "Why do you want/What do you plan to do with admin powers?" makes sense. —Dgiest c 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point. I say remove it. Xiner (talk, email) 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we remove the trick question? 

message: Hi, I just wanted to know if you guys think my work is fit enough to for me to become an admin eventually? I prefer getting opinions first before I decide. Amlder20 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With an edit count of only 299, you would be opposed as being too inexperienced for people to be sure that you wouldn't screw up when using the tools. Read WP:GRFA, keep editing, and after a while you might be in a better position to request adminship. --ais523 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to see how you're doing so far, you may be interested in getting an editor review. Trebor 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my opinion. Thanks for the input anyway guys. Amlder20 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amlder20 

message: What is the minimum edit count needed to apply for Adminship and what do you look for in an Editor to be chosen as an Admin??--Cometstyles 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is technically no minimum edit count needed and anyone asking that is probably unlikely to pass. Most people look for 2000-3000 though. – Chacor 13:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The last lengthly discussion was here. Cheers!--Kchase T 13:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This chart puts my Success rate at O.8% which I believe is Quite good for a novice..--Cometstyles 13:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *First, that chart is a year out of date and other charts I have done show that standards slowly rise over time. That said, there isn't any edit count based reason why someone with 4,000 edits should be opposed. Which leads to the second point; don't focus on edit counts, either for yourself or others. Focus instead on how you help the project. If the ways in which you want to help the project are appropriate to an administrator, you've demonstrated the ability to be trusted with the additional tools granted to administrators, and you've demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies, there isn't any reason you should not be an admin. However, there are going to be edit countitis addicts who will insist that your current 191 edits to the Wikipedia project space is too low. Focus on the positives. --Durin 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Addendum; there are going to be people who oppose you because you've been here three months, as opposed to six months or a year. Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_82#2006_RfA_In_Review. --Durin 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx for the Advice and anyways I was going to apply for Adminship in May and all I wanted to know if its still 3000 minimum edits or not because recently I have seen Editors with over 10000 edits being unsuccessful with their application and thats quite a drawback and yes I do have only 191 edits on Wikipedia Project space and User: Majorly did point that put to me that for a user to have 100% chance of winning he or she must have done a lot on Wikiprojects and since then I have been trying my best and my Editor Review did teach me that I still have a long way to go and thanx for having faith in me..--Cometstyles 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple of pointers: "thanx" won't help you, you need to start typing proper words, unfortunately. Secondly, this isn't about "winning". Thirdly, Wikipedia ("project-space") ≠ Wikiprojects. And as I pointed out above, there's no set "minimum", per se. – Chacor 14:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks..Iam sorry but thats how I mainly write on talk pages and in Articles I use proper English and I know its not about winning but its about commitment and Hardwork and regarding "Wikiprojects" I was just Quoting Durin and its good to know that there isnt any set minimum edit requirement...--Cometstyles 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say "that for a user to have 100% chance of winning he or she must have done a lot on Wikiprojects". Please don't misquote me. Majorly (o rly?) 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimum Edits 

message: How many Wikignomes actually pass adminship successfully?? I'm one of them, and another editor on here wants to nominate me - but what's the percentage rate for Wikignomes?? --sunstar nettalk 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NoSeptember, I'm not literally a gnome, it's just a metaphor (per WP:GNOME). As it stands, I just tend to add obscure but verifiable information to articles, take part in AFD's/MFD/CFD/TFD's, nominate speedy deletions, request page protection etc. etc.
- if that counts as wikignoming. My last RfA failed due to some concerns, how can I improve this?? --sunstar nettalk 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I passed unopposed as a self-described wikignome. I think having a) a demonstrated need/use for the tools and b) some experience with the basics of article writing are essential to gnomes avoiding the 'stigma' of being specialists. -- nae'blis 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto to what naeblis says.  I passed unopposed in November (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Metros232) with a few comments saying we needed more wikignomes with tools, Metros232 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikignomes 

message: I see that the talk page here is about as short as it gets.  There has been a steady stream of RfA candidates, with something like 85%–90% passing lately.  The survey on the evils of RfA has died down.  Seems the current cycle of hand-wringing over the RfA process has died down once again—and once again, nothing was "fixed".  I keep thinking that this is an indication that nothing is really broken with the RfA process, but this will probably be viewed by some as an indication that there is something broken with the "RfA reform process".  I do appreciate all the pretty charts though. :-) —Doug Bell talk 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking the same thing. There was a stretch there where it seemed people were much more willing to support candidates. Maybe that says something for the candidates themselves or maybe it says something about the dynamic views of voters. Nevertheless, it almost made me want to apply for adminship!↔NMajdan•talk 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's jinxed now!!!! Anyway, the RfAs have been passing well recently, always a good thing – not so sure about RfBs though, considering the last 9 or so have failed. Anyway... Majorly (o rly?) 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's quite possible that, like democracy, RFA is the very worst system except for all those other systems. >Radiant< 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You crystalized my thoughts precicely! I have always been unconvinced that anything here is really "broken". Agent 86 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Is there a problem of not enough bureaucrats to get the work done?  I don't see a broken system there either...seems like enough candidates succeed to meet the needs. —Doug Bell talk 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of Wikipedia:Changing username where there are 17 requests sat waiting. I know it's not an essential part of the running of things, but still it would be nice to have it cleared. Majorly (o rly?) 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that gave me a chuckle.  17, wow.  And some as old as almost two days.  Compared to the admin backlogs, I see we do have a problem at RfB... :-)  —Doug Bell talk 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that if namechanges were something any admin could do (which has been proposed, at least in non-usurpation situations), the backlog would still get to two days sometimes. Newyorkbrad 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We might need more bcrats, but probably not for CHU. Two days ago there was only one open request. Also, notice in that diff that Essjay handled 7 requests in 3 minutes (03:51 - 03:54, 27 February 2007). ChazBeckett 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, where are the bureaucrat backlogs then that indicate we need more?  I'm not opposed to promoting more, I just don't see that there is a problem with RfB to fix. —Doug Bell talk 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, but I don't have a good answer for it. I think we have an ample number of bureucrats at the moment and I trust that the community will respond by electing more when/if this is no longer the case. ChazBeckett 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is a problem with CHU, we could also ask the developers if they'll make changing usernames an admin task, or invent a new group for it. There is no clear reason why username changes, assigning of bot flags, and assigning of sysop flags should be made by the same people, who are determined by a screening process that focuses almost exclusively on the third of these tasks. Kusma (討論) 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are technically correct, but I think it is probably easier and more fun to manually sort 500 revisions of wrongly merged articles than to deal with the fallout of a controversial promotion (which for practical purposes can't be undone without an ArbCom case). Kusma (討論) 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking more of accidental promotion. It's happened before, but was sorted within two hours by a steward. Majorly (o rly?) 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe nothing is broken afterall 

message: I've seen a few RFAs recently that have oppose votes because the candidate has uploaded no or only a few images. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be a pain, but can you provide some examples?  The Rambling Man 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw "no image experience" opposes on several RfA's in November and December, not as many recently. I was braced for some opposition on that ground to my own RfA in January, but the image-based !voters took that week off. :) Newyorkbrad 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newyorkbrad, yeah, I remember that, but this is slightly different and even more specific. :) Xiner (talk, email) 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems unnecessarily extreme to me, but then again it's a question of how "rounded" an applicant should be.  There are various schools of thought that say a potential admin should have a good grasp of all aspects of WP while others say niche expertise is equally valid.  Lack of photographic ability (or free use uploads etc) should definitely not preclude a support opinion... (in my opinion!)... The Rambling Man 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rambling Man, I just saw one on one of the active candidacies. I don't want to provide a diff because my post is more of a theoretical question and I don't want to be seen as trying to help a candidate or criticize or a nay vote. I don't know any of the persons concerned and hope to avoid the appearance of pointing fingers. Hope you can understand. Sorry. Xiner (talk, email) 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, of course, not a problem.  My previous comment stands, my personal feeling is that if a prospective admin candidate shows me that they've got enough to offer WP in any or all of the various areas of contribution then I will support them.  I cannot believe anyone could object based purely on image upload (or lack of...) The Rambling Man 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. You can't expect every candidate to have experience in every facet of Wikipedia; its just too vast.↔NMajdan•talk 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose this is the typical backlog (trick)* question "...can you help with backlogs..." blah, with the generic "...I'd help with XfD backlogs and speedy deletes..." without a distinguished history of edits in the XfD field.  Bottom line is that RFA applicants ought to know that saying they'll help out on various backlogs will immediately open themselves (to some extent, correctly) to a certain amount of scrutiny in their experience in that area of editing.  The Rambling Man 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to point out that you don't need to upload images to be involved in IfD's. Xiner (talk, email) 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeh, almost as crazy as the time someone opposed me on my RFA for having too little template edits. — Moe 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, no fair!  That oppose was a protest oppose because you'd opposed AzaToth that same week for not enough main space edits.  Anyway, my point here is still relevant—it's not like the opposes for dubious reasons on either of our RfA's were going to derail the process. —Doug Bell talk 00:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about that. Xiner (talk, email) 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Lack of image uploads isn't a valid objection, but many copyvio uploads are. The image uploading opposes is likely because of the image backlogs, which can get backlogged for weeks. Thanks Ja wat's sup 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just thinking: I would understand "lack of free image uploads". I would even understand "lack of image uploads" in someone who is willing to help with the deletion image backlogs. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, just by passing candidates who want to work in other areas, you may well free up time for existing admins who want to deal with IfDs. Xiner (talk, email) 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploading images is not an admin action. HowIBecameCivil 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dealing with IfDs sometimes does, if the nomination is correct. Xiner (talk, email) 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new objection 

message: My RFA's supposed to be expired a few years ago but no crats are like closing it. Is it going to close in a short while? --Deryck C. 08:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Years?! :)  --210physicq (c) 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, bad timing.  It might be a little longer than usual before it is closed... —Doug Bell talk 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering that two b'crats are currently very inactive and one is undergoing a community-wide pillage, your promotion may take a while. --210physicq (c) 09:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for telling me about that. I'm waiting! --Deryck C. 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 13:35, 2 March 2007 Taxman (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Deryck Chan from (none) to sysop, so it seems that it doesn't take ridiculously long to clear out an RfA backlog even in times of turmoil. --ais523 13:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We definitely need more 'crats. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a good number of active crats? 15? 25? I do think 11 is a little low but I don't think there is a need for that many more.↔NMajdan•talk 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 23 currently; I would say max of 8 are active, and three do the most work around here. I've called for more bureaucrats before, but have been shouted down. Incidents like this show we do. And check the rename user backlog. Majorly (o rly?) 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've never thought opposes based on "we don't need anymore 'crats" are very compelling. It never hurts to have a surplus of anything, so judge a candidate on his/her merits. Trebor 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, we should be less harsh with RfB.  The "active" ones seem to be slowly declining in activity.  While the backlogs aren't too bad, we could definitely use more activity in those areas. John Reaves (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps to ease to workload on the 'crats, the rights of synops could be increased to include a few 'crat tasks. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They currently have three jobs. Another needs to be nominated and not opposed for the sake of "no more needed". I have a good candidate coming up soon, I hope. Majorly (o rly?) 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: He's on a wikibreak currently, so it won't be happening soon. Majorly (o rly?) 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Durova is interested in becoming a 'crat. See here. · AO Talk 23:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it isn't Durova. It's a user who I used to mistake for a bureaucrat in my early days here. Majorly (o rly?) 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm certainly not opposed to two nominations. John Reaves (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That was bad, particularly as most of the opposes had no rationale. Majorly (o rly?) 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we've arrived at the situation that some predicted: a couple of inactive 'crats meaning there's a backlog. This is hardly the most important thing in the Wiki, but it just seems unnecessary (and consequently a bit short-sighted on behalf of the opposers). Creating new 'crats "when we need them" seems to be inferior to creating new 'crats "in case we need them". Trebor 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'll vote for Durin for b-crat in a snap, we do need another B-crat or two, now that Essjay left the project, I won't be surpriced if several people runs in the next few weeks, we do need to lower B-crat promotion standards from 90% to 85% though as they are always going to be people that say we don't need more b-crats, I had a agruement on IRC about it not long ago. Jaranda wat's sup 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't look like closing? 

message: Some of the current RfA's have some of the lowest amount of participation that I can recall in years. It is very important that some editors spend some time evaluating the candidates' edit histories to determine their suitability for adminship and give well reasoned opinions. Thank you - Taxman Talk 15:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need some experienced reviewers

message: A simple question. Are bots ever promoted or nominated as administrators of Wikipedia? Simply south 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None has ever been successfully promoted, no.  Several have been nominated (2 or 3, I can't remember exactly).  User:ProtectionBot got closest, but was withdrawn after a developer got a patch in to the MediaWiki trunk that would perform the same function without a bot.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, some admins do use bots on their accounts. And not everybody thinks that RfA is the right place for bots, either. -Amarkov moo! 00:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not many though, they mostly use scripts. If they do it isn't allowed. The only one that was allowed that I remember is Curps bot. Ja wat's sup 05:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bots usually don't get adminship, but users with bots sometimes do. Michael 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Technically people are a lot more fussy about adminbots, especially as they can do a lot of possibly irreparable damage (merging page histories, for example, is an irreversible step, as far as I recall). Yuser31415 07:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't irreversible. It is a pain in the ass to reverse, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots for admin 

message: I didn't notice so before, but it seems to me that number 4 of the standard questions being asked at RfB is rather loaded:
:"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, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?"
The desired reply is rather obvious: yes, I will pledge so (of course, it may be considered a trick question, but is that fair?) 
I'm raising this especially since I think there are good reasons for private communication, though of course the final decision must be motivated in public if necessary. I don't want to discuss that here, I'm only proposing to use more neutral language in the question, e.g. something along the line of "Will you discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats and in public (in their talk pages or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard)?" (first draft). 
Apologies if this has been discussed before; I admit I didn't look through the 83 archived talk pages. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the question is leading and it's the type of question that sounds good, so of course why would anyone not agree to it. I got stuck in that without catching all the implications. There are cases where discussing everything in public forces a WP:BEANS violation. I've discussed the problems with discussing sockpuppeting completely in the open before. You can never be 100% right, but sometimes you can tell it's going on anyway. You help them be more sneaky if you discuss the evidence and they'll all of course complain loudly if you name names. And checkuser is of course no magic bullet. - Taxman Talk 12:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting. I never had to answer that question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was added after the Carnildo promotion. – Chacor 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfB question 4 

message: W.marsh candidated for bureaucratship, see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/W.marsh, then repeatedly deleted his nomination page. I guess that's not appropriate, even if the user withdraws the nomination page needs too be kept. Is that so? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd expect so as archives should be kept of all things.Rlevse 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh noes, tis the wheel war! Yeah, I was under the impression that all nominations, regardless of their acceptance, should be kept for historical purposes. PTO 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That was a very special case, Gator1 left due to a set of unfortunate circumstances when somebody found his real name and contacted  his work place or something like that. There is no good reason to delete your own nomination. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if you want it deleted it can be. You've stated you don't intend to try again, so there's no point. Majorly (o rly?) 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand you are ticked off over the result of the RFB but don't delete it. The RFB should be restored for historical purposes, like Oleg said, Gator1 was a special case, as he was harrassed out of wikipedia :(. You would have had full 100% support from me in the RFB anyways. Remember bureucratship, like adminship isn't a big deal. Just take a wikibreak and write some articles, which you are good at. Jaranda wat's sup 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone is keeping RfB stats like they do for RfA, then it would be nice to have.  And if you ever change your mind and decide to run again people would want to see the last one.  As a compromise, how about someone recreates it as closed with only the final vote, that it was withdrawn, and a brief explanation why the details are not shown. —dgiestc 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  W.marsh, ideally you'd have a time machine and you'd go in the past telling yourself not to candidate. However, now that the RfB request was posted, and people voted, following process it should be withdrawn and archived, and you should move on. And really, repeatedly deleting it is called a wheel war and doesn't look so good on you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go. Away. --W.marsh 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It will probably be archived in a few days, ignore it.. — Moe 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting one's RfB 

message: 3 New RfBs have gone up in the last 12 hours or so, and I anticipate that we will see some more.  Can anyone provide any statistics regarding 'crat activity.  Aside from whether an individual candidate is qualified, there seems to be a question regarding whether or not another crat is actually needed at this point in time.  Some statistics may help to clarify this.  In the absence of this, I may start opposing/neutraling nominations based on a criteria of "let's see what happens for a while with one fewer, before we jump to any conclusions". --After Midnight 0001 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of interest, is the "we don't need one right now" a fair oppose because, after all, if an editor is qualified, they're qualified, right?  The Rambling Man 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't really fair. Majorly (o rly?) 18:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Sadly, as I stated in my three neutral votes, I was expected this. No better opportunity to fetch the bureaucrat chair than when one is having troubles with the community, or one just left. This is not the trying admin's fault, though, there is this "elitist" thought that we need as few bureaucrats as possible, converting it into a Cabal. We should be as open as possible. We don't have three stewards, we have 29! -- ReyBrujo 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And yes, I know stewards do handle problems with hundreds of Wikipedias, but you get my meaning. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec*3)There does seem to be recent precedent for opposing based on need for the bureaucrat as opposed to just the qualifications. --After Midnight 0001 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Folks who oppose RfB saying "there's no need for more b'crats" are awfully loose spending the time and effort of the existing bureaucrats.  It should be based on individual merit, not "offensive timing" or a unilateral decision that "there are enough". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After Midnight, that is exactly what I was talking about. When you have a 'crat basically stating "we don't need more of us", it speaks very badly of the position: it makes it seem as it is a closed circle you can enter only by sacrificing black cats on full moons. That is why the RfB were expected when Raul did what he did, and now that Essjay left. Very unfortunately, but true. -- ReyBrujo 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec*2) So is the suggestion that there should be a precise number of 'crats, no more no less?  When one resigns, allow another election?  In all cases these requests are fervently referred to as such, and not votes.  We try to reach a consensus, not a winning score, so if we don't "need another 'crat" then perhaps the current RfB process needs to be completely different.  The Rambling Man 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold for administrators is "have as many as possible". The threshold for bureaucrats is "have as few as possible". I see a problem there. -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's kind of what I mean.  Adminship = no big deal while bureaucratship = we don't need another one so even if you're the best ever, forgataboutit.....  Not good.  The Rambling Man 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite disappointed at the RfB process, to be honest. People oppose for abstract philosophical reasons. Because of all the argument over whether or not the RfA process is a vote or not, expressing an opinion of either kind will get people opposing you either saying "But RfA really isn't a vote!" or "For all intents and purposes, RfA is a vote!", as RfA is such a big part of being a bureaucrat. I don't expect to see any nominations pass for a while. A shame really, as I feel that most candidates that nominate themselves probably should be promoted. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 19:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I literally don't think that anyone could pass an RfB in the foreseeable future. For one thing, there's no good answer to the "would you have promoted Ryulong" question that's been added to two of the recent nominations, which won't tick off at least 10% of the !voters. Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that we will soon need to add a couple of new bureaucrats, and I certainly don't see that there would be any danger to having one or two more than some people deem absolutely necessary. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my problem with it, exactly. No matter how you answer questions, you're going to annoy enough people with your answers to fail the RfB. Unfortunately I can't think of a better way of doing it at the minute. I would nominate myself (again) but considering that my last one wasn't long ago and I know it'd fail, I see no point. There's not going to be any new bcrats for a while, the RfB crowd just wouldn't allow it. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 19:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I quite like this idea. Totally unsuitable for RfA, but since that's not what you're suggesting I quite like it. I wonder whether it'll start making bureaucratship feel more like ArbCom than adminship though. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it, but we have to get more crats somehow... Captain panda In vino veritas 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of election procedure for Bureaucrats in the same format as Arbitrators.  Shyam (T/C) 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. Let people judge a crat nominee based on credentials, not on the need (or lack thereof) for one.↔NMajdan•talk 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You have to be fair. People think two are enough, so that one person can handle every request at WP:CHU. Nobody's so insane as to force one person to perform every bureaucrat action. -Amarkov moo! 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bad situation. However a couple of weeks wouldn't have minded since Essjay's resignation – you never know, the inactive bureaucrats might have picked up the workload created. Majorly (o rly?) 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reviewing some recent RfBs, I found another problem. If people mention that they'd ignore invalid opposition reasons, they get opposed for disregarding consensus. If they don't, they get opposed for disregarding consensus. It would be funny if it didn't prevent people from passing. -Amarkov moo! 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been through all the failed RfBs since September, i.e. Ram-man, and there were other reasons beside "need for bureaucrats" in all but one. That's about 11 I think. Majorly (o rly?) 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's see why some of the candidates didn't pass (these are the main oppose reasons by the way):
*Ram-Man: mostly due to him having little experience with RfAs
*Geni: Answers, little RfA experience.
*Mailer diablo: 1FA
*1ne: maturity problems, from IRC
*Crzrussian - too early, and his resignation as an admin.
*Grandmasterka - Answers
*Deskana - forgot to mention consensus, amongst other things
*Nihonjoe - this is a difficult one to analyse, but most people were "per Taxman" - who said we don't need anymore.
*W.marsh - Essjay AfD conduct.
*RyanGerbil - possibly too soon after Essjay's resignation?
Hope this shows interest. Majorly (o rly?) 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do find this interesting. How many of the central oppose votes have anything to do with how the candidate will use RfB tools? There are a few which are just crazy. I fail to see how the 1FA standard should have anything to do with how he acts as a bureaucrat. Incidentally, I think 1FA is a silly way of judging RfAs, but I'd never oppose an RfB because of it. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In reply to Durin's original comment, Never a good time to run, I believe trying to achieve bureaucratship when a previous bureaucrat retires or has a low standing in the community is cheap. Why? Because we are using the excuse of "But now they are one less". Yes, I acknowledge there is a problem because now two or three bureaucrats need to do more, but I also notice another problem: why is it cheap to do this? Because we are not used to RfBs. We should have at least a couple per month, with a 50% success rate. We should add around 10 bureaucrats per year, so that we can really say "bureaucratship is not big deal". -- ReyBrujo 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say I'm slightly disappointed by the opposition based on it being too soon after Essjay's departure. There seemed to be an attitude in previous RfBs (particularly Nihonjoe's) that "we don't need any more 'crats now, we'll approve them when we do", yet now a situation has arrived that we probably could do with more, they're being opposed for it being "too soon" (again, I can't see how that has any relevance to whether they'd be good or not). Add to that the very high threshold to succeed, and it does seem impossible to pass RfB at this time. Trebor 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A good, sensible, logical position to take. Majorly (o rly?) 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for a bureaucrat? 

message: I think the main problem is that each candidate has to individually dodge the "do we need more crats" question, then they have to pass the "are you my ideal candidate for a crat" question. Its unsurprising that overwhelming concensus doesn't result as a consequence. It may be better to first have a concensus on whether we could use additional crats. Lets say hypothetically that it is decided that things would run smoother if we had two new crats. It could then be made known that two crat posts are available. All those who think they'd make good crats then nominate themselves. The community votes for a week. Then the two candidates with the biggest support margins would become crats.
At the moment individual crat noms are pretty much doomed to failure. If there is a concensus that more crats would be helpful (I don't think need to be necessary in the strict sense of the term) then we should look to something a little more like the ArbCom model- assume there will be promotions at the end of the day and pick the best candidates. What do people think? WjBscribe 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like this idea. Totally unsuitable for RfA, but since that's not what you're suggesting I quite like it. I wonder whether it'll start making bureaucratship feel more like ArbCom than adminship though. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it, but we have to get more crats somehow... Captain panda In vino veritas 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of election procedure for Bureaucrats in the same format as Arbitrators.  Shyam (T/C) 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. Let people judge a crat nominee based on credentials, not on the need (or lack thereof) for one.↔NMajdan•talk 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the process to be more like the ArbCom elections model?

message: Apparently one bureaucrat is enough': Per a number of comments at two of the three different RfBs that have been run today, enough of the community feels that two bureaucrats are capable of handling RfA. As I noted on my RfB, there are only two bureaucrats in the last three months that have conducted more than 3 promotions. Two. I fail to understand how anyone can construe this situation as a good one where no additional help is needed. At present when (not if, but when) Redux or Taxman go on vacation, the effective load on the other half of the RfA bureaucrat team is doubled. Doubled. We already have a hard enough time convincing bureaucrats to work at RfA. Expecting the remaining two to double their burden when the other it not available (for whatever reason) is unreasonable. The community seems to feel this is an equitable situation, that in the event one of the two bureaucrats steps away temporarily there is no cause for alarm; we still have one bureaucrat to cover the bases. Thus, it seems rational to conclude from this that even just one bureaucrat is enough. 
Never a good time to run: On my RfB, Oleg Alexandrov noted the "paradoxal situation that if you candidate when some other bureaucrat resigns you are told that you take advantage of the situation, and if you candidate when no bureaucrats resign you are told that no bureaucrats are needed". This is an apt description of the problem. We've had eight candidates for RfB in the last nine months. Not one of them has passed (including my own and RyanGerbil10, which are both failing miserably). 
Apparently, the only good time that there will be to run, the only time that there will be sufficient consensus to pass an RfB that we need more bureaucrats is when there are zero bureaucrats. Whether or not most people think this is true is irrelevant. In practice this is what is happening at RfB. --Durin 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to be fair. People think two are enough, so that one person can handle every request at WP:CHU. Nobody's so insane as to force one person to perform every bureaucrat action. -Amarkov moo! 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bad situation. However a couple of weeks wouldn't have minded since Essjay's resignation – you never know, the inactive bureaucrats might have picked up the workload created. Majorly (o rly?) 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reviewing some recent RfBs, I found another problem. If people mention that they'd ignore invalid opposition reasons, they get opposed for disregarding consensus. If they don't, they get opposed for disregarding consensus. It would be funny if it didn't prevent people from passing. -Amarkov moo! 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been through all the failed RfBs since September, i.e. Ram-man, and there were other reasons beside "need for bureaucrats" in all but one. That's about 11 I think. Majorly (o rly?) 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's see why some of the candidates didn't pass (these are the main oppose reasons by the way):
*Ram-Man: mostly due to him having little experience with RfAs
*Geni: Answers, little RfA experience.
*Mailer diablo: 1FA
*1ne: maturity problems, from IRC
*Crzrussian - too early, and his resignation as an admin.
*Grandmasterka - Answers
*Deskana - forgot to mention consensus, amongst other things
*Nihonjoe - this is a difficult one to analyse, but most people were "per Taxman" - who said we don't need anymore.
*W.marsh - Essjay AfD conduct.
*RyanGerbil - possibly too soon after Essjay's resignation?
Hope this shows interest. Majorly (o rly?) 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do find this interesting. How many of the central oppose votes have anything to do with how the candidate will use RfB tools? There are a few which are just crazy. I fail to see how the 1FA standard should have anything to do with how he acts as a bureaucrat. Incidentally, I think 1FA is a silly way of judging RfAs, but I'd never oppose an RfB because of it. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In reply to Durin's original comment, Never a good time to run, I believe trying to achieve bureaucratship when a previous bureaucrat retires or has a low standing in the community is cheap. Why? Because we are using the excuse of "But now they are one less". Yes, I acknowledge there is a problem because now two or three bureaucrats need to do more, but I also notice another problem: why is it cheap to do this? Because we are not used to RfBs. We should have at least a couple per month, with a 50% success rate. We should add around 10 bureaucrats per year, so that we can really say "bureaucratship is not big deal". -- ReyBrujo 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say I'm slightly disappointed by the opposition based on it being too soon after Essjay's departure. There seemed to be an attitude in previous RfBs (particularly Nihonjoe's) that "we don't need any more 'crats now, we'll approve them when we do", yet now a situation has arrived that we probably could do with more, they're being opposed for it being "too soon" (again, I can't see how that has any relevance to whether they'd be good or not). Add to that the very high threshold to succeed, and it does seem impossible to pass RfB at this time. Trebor 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A good, sensible, logical position to take. Majorly (o rly?) 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raising red flags

message: In terms of how bureaucrats should be selected (and whether, in theory, they should exist as a separate user class), recall that there are basically four bureaucrat functions:
#Overseeing the RfA process and closing clear-outcome RfA's;
#Deciding on the presence or absence of consensus in borderline RfA's;
#Username changes (now including usurpations); and
#Bot flags (after the bot approvals group has cleared the bot).
A vast majority of the time, items 1, 3, and 4 are pretty much ministerial tasks, not requiring a great deal of discretion. The level of community confidence required is not all that much different from that associated with ordinary administrative tasks, and I daresay that if system issues could be overcome, it would not cause a great disruption to Wikipedia if any administrator, or perhaps any administrator with more than XX months of experience as an admin, were authorized to perform them.
That leaves determining consensus on close RfA's.  Since I've been active in commenting on RfA's, a period of roughly six months, there have been a total of perhaps 3 or 4 RfA's which either were controversial when closed or arguably arguably have closed in more than one way (Carnildo 2, Ryulong 3, Kafziel 2, possibly Wernda 4). That implies that the whole RfB process may come down to selecting a group of people who may, at most, make one significant discretionary decision every month or two. Granted they are important decisions, of course, but I still think that if this had been foreseen, it is not inevitable that a separate class of bureaucrats would have evolved, or that the perceived qualifications for bureaucrats should require as much well-nigh perfection as they seem to. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there was an uproar about the closing of Werdna 4; I supported him, but accept that there wasn't consensus, as did everybody else (if I recall correctly). Sean Black 2 is a better fourth member of that list, although it was more than six months ago. Picaroon 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't an uproar about Werdna 4, but a 'crat could have arguably closed it as a promotion using the Ryulong precedent. My point is that even using a wide spectrum of discretion, there were still only 3-4 close calls in a 6-month period. Sean Black is before my time. Newyorkbrad 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's any way to separate 1 and 2 - they either have the ability to promote or they don't. I'm not sure why 3 and 4 initially became 'crat functions - are there increased risks associated with those functions above and beyond the usual admin tools? Trebor 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bureaucrat qualifications

message: Well, Durin has withdrawn his attempt at bureaucratship now. Anyone have an idea for getting someone passed? Captain panda In vino veritas 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I supported Durin as a bureaucrat, I don't see that there is any dire issue here.  If a backlog develops for bureaucrat tasks, I suspect the problem will correct itself—people will apply, and some will be chosen until the problem goes away.  I still say there's not a problem here. —Doug Bell talk 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to the question, look at past RfBs. Avoid the mistakes of others, and look at successful requests for a good idea of what's being looked for. Majorly (o rly?) 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasnt Durin's fault. I Believed he was the best choice but then who am i. Essjay made a big mistake but you cant blame his mistake on someone else and I know the request was too soon to apply for Bureaucratship but we should have at least given him a chance to show his worth. He had to withdraw and by far he would have been the best choice. (all the other Bureaucrats arent doing their job)..--Cometstyles 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not correct to say "all the other Bureaucrats arent doing their job" as they are, perhaps not as efficiently as we'd like though. Majorly (o rly?) 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfB of Durin

message: When the position of bureaucrat was created in 2003, the powers that be at the time posted six...yes Virginia, six...people to the position. See the bottom of Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Now we're down to two active bureaucrats at RfA. Further, one of the two remaining bureaucrats has at least twice stated there's no need for more bureaucrats, and one RfB was torpedoed due to this stance. Nope. No problems here! Move along please... --Durin 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's specious.  There have never been more than one or two highly active bureaucrats at once.  Most of the original six only made a handful of promotions.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's an interesting quote from Redux, just after getting the 'crat flag in June 2006: Especially, I've been able to cover what I'm calling a "window of inactivity" in the Bureaucracy: it extends roughly from 2 a.m. to 11 a.m. UTC daily. During this time, it is not uncommon that all the Bureaucrats are offline, so any RfAs ending during this time could be closed with a delay of up to 9 or 10 hours. So the timezone problem was affecting RfA until that promotion filled a gap; with only 2 active 'crats, it would be almost impossible to cover all 24 hours (luckily, I can't think of anything that would require immediate 'crat action, and if there were it would be possible to borrow a steward from Meta in an emergency). --ais523 16:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *THE metric people are using for judging if there are enough bureaucrats is whether there are any backlogs. RfA backlog is probably considered anything over 8 days on full run RfAs. Since one active bureaucrat can handle all of that, one bureaucrat is therefore enough to handle it all. Thus, we do not need more than one bureaucrat. Since it is obviously such a BadThing(tm) to have more than the number of bureaucrats we need, we should ask one of two bureaucrats we have to step down. :) --Durin 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *:Another interesting stat is that all over the archives of Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges there are statements that "a 'crat has said that they could manage the extra workload", although I can't find the original statement they refer to. So back then (it would have been some time between June and August 2006) there was a feeling among the 'crats that they could manage an extra workload without trouble. --ais523 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The bureaucrat count is rather distressing...we have such high standards of what a bureaucrat should be that it almost becomes idealized. bibliomaniac15 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *It is idealized. Becoming a bureaucrat is less possible than becoming a member of ArbCom. When did being a bureaucrat become so lofty that it is *the* set of tools most impossible to get? It's absurd on the face of it. I'll restate what I've said earlier; show me a person qualified to be a bureaucrat and I'll show you someone who has too little proven experience. ANYone here who does their job will got shot down in the current climate. --Durin 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's in the archives for this talk page.  I believe that I was the one who suggested that any bureaucrat candidate with any meaningful opposition should not be promoted.  This was before it was fashionable to oppose individual candidate's nominations on the dubious grounds that we already have enough bureaucrats.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Ma.  Get the pitchforks.  We've found the rat bastard that's dun us in.  ;-)  I think our definition of "meaningful opposition" may need retooling after all the changes the community has seen.  Dragons flight 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting little historical note 

message: One possibility to address the issues raised above about the b'crat selection process is to break it up into two parts:
#At a regular interval (say, every six months), we have a discussion and !vote on whether wikipedia needs a new bureaucrat.  If the result of this discussion is negative, the process stops.  
#If the result is positive, we start a period roughly akin to the arbcomm election: a period of nomination, followed by questions and answers, followed by votes.  The candidate with the highest percentage positive is made a bureaucrat.
Anyway, tell me what you think.   Bucketsofg 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take this up a level and opine that that whole RFA system is due for overhaul.  We have far worse problems than the nature of the bureaucrat elections, though I agree that the present system is frustrating and unfair.  See the WikiProject.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you, Bucketsofg. Only one question, what percentage of voters wanting a new crat do you think is necessary to get a new crat? Captain panda In vino veritas 02:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be consensus, which in the case of a simple yes-no question should be 2:1 in favour.  Bucketsofg 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works with me. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested new bureaucrat election system

message: I've been kicking around an alternative idea intended to supplement RfA without replacing it. Not really my idea to begin with but some of the language is mine and I think it's worth considering. Comments appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict)-Why can't someone be "proposed for adminiship" if they have proposed someonelse. Also, why only one objection per editor every 3 months, where Jimbo gets unlimited. He may be the founder, but that doesn't give him special power in RFA voting. I wouldn't support thus proposition. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: At the risk of sounding dumb, would you mind explaining what good thing this is intended to accomplish?  Since it only seems to deal with noms that are otherwise completely unopposed, it seems to add more bureaucracy while accomplishing litte.  Dragons flight 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No ... it would do more than that.  Remember - you only get one objection.  So if there is someone that you are kinda opposed to, but it isn't worth giving up your right to object to future RFAs, you will sit quietly.  So the proposed administrator would just be the elephant in the room. (The population of elephants in the room would be tripled, thanks to Stephen Colbert.) --BigDT 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The criteria for "good standing" seem rather high. Aside from the example of Jimbo, users who fail/are very close to failing (depending on what exactly counts as a semi-automated tool or JS-aided) include Bishonen, mav, Neutrality and I am sure many others who I did not think to check off the top of my head. Because these users are obviously in good standing, the standards seem questionable. I also worry that a specific types of users will be particularly prone to exclusion under them, which would be problematic for the process. The downside is that if we actually let everyone who is in good standing participate, the number of objections available will so overwhelm the total number of candidates that every plausibly objectionable candidate will probably find an opposer. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to changing the number, but the idea is to deliberately limit the objectors. Otherwise we might as well just keep RfA. Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a cautionary note, I'd advise you to read through the talk page of WP:QAV first. I suspect there's merit in the idea, but it would have to be done very carefully and I suspect no set of criteria (even fuzzy criteria) would ever reach consensus. --ais523 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No. This concentrates power rather than delegates it, does not scale well, and does not leverage the wisdom of the crowd in an effective way. I'm also unclear on the benefit of forbidding people who have nominated/been nominated from being in good standing, and am mightily unhappy with the "Jimbo veto" rule, since he keeps nominally trying to devolve power away from himself. -- nae'blis 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor idea 

message: I am one of several admins originally nominated by Essjay.  Essjay's fraud calls into question everything that he did.  I'm willing to step down if anyone in the community thinks this is a reaonable idea.  -- Rick Block (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be silly, you have demonstrated yourself to be trustworthy and got through the RfA process without issue. ViridaeTalk 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, why don't we rollback any articles he contributed to as well. Seriously, how in the world could you fabricate consensus among active, non-sockpuppet Wikipedians? -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be absurd. Even if your adminship was wholly dependant on Essjay's vouching for you that wouldn't make you an invalid administrator. You aren't a Catholic doctrinal article, so his fabricated credentials have no bearing towards his opinion of you. --tjstrf talk 05:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be a dumbass.  (I mean that in the most gentle and loving way possible.) Your nomination was judged on its merits, and it received unanimous (!) support.  While we shouldn't understate the effect that Essjay's deceptions have had – on Wikipedia in general and on his friends and acquaintances in particular – there's also no need to blow this mess up into more of a disaster than it needs to be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, he missed WP:100 and now he can get another go. Besides, I didn't know him well enough to support last time, and I feel like I missed out. So if the dumbass wants to run again, we can all have some fun. Which is all by way of saying: "No, Rick, you don't need to do it again". Dragons flight 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonsense (in a playful context). Just because a now-disgraced editor nominated you doesn't mean that your own position, attained with community support, is in hot water or is controversial. Using your reasoning, if you were to resign your position as your nominator is disgraced (hence making you disgraced), shall I have to step down also? (you nominated me, remember?) :)--210physicq (c) 05:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Any admin who thinks that he maybe should step down should step down since he knows enouhg to be worried and any admin in this position who doesn't think he should step down is obviously too involved with Essjay. Ok, joking aside there's no reason for you to step down. JoshuaZ 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hell no. Essjay did a lot of good things for Wikipedia as well as a lot of goofy things.  -- Nick t 13:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Per TenOfAllTrades - this is a purely ridiculous extension of a completely different issue. A most stupid suggestion. Rama's arrow 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What everyone else wrote. No known issues with you other than your clearly misguided opinions on certain featured article candidates... :-) :-) :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody is skilled enough to make a sockpuppet with your level of involvement, especially if they have another, very high profile, account. And if people have such amazing sockpuppetry skills, there are other people who are much more likely to be sockpuppets. For instance, in the mailing list a couple months back, someone made a joking comment that I am a sockpuppet because I don't do any article writing. I'm actually surprised nobody has seriously advanced that, because it's actually something people might say. And I've managed to go completely off on a tangent. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Two things: 1. Though I'm shocked at some of the things that have come out recently, I can still reconcile them with the Essjay I know, because I think of them as an initially minor deception that got out of hand; I cannot reconcile the scenario you describe, Rick, with the Essjay I know.  Of Essjay's many thousands of edits, we know of a few that could be considered bad-faith.  It seems likeliest (as you suggest with your Occam's razor comment) that the ones there are we know about.  2. The hypothetical scenario of someone running a convincing good-guy account and a no-good sockpuppet simultaneously has frequently been suggested, but there's no evidence it's been done, and as Amarkov says above, it would take someone of tremendous skill and pathological deviousness.  Karmafist, who's awfully smart, tried to do it and couldn't pull it off. Chick Bowen 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OMG ONE SUPPORT VOTE! Even if he was a meat/sockpuppet, which nobody has actually proved, a single support vote from a user with 5 edits does not change the course of a RfB. -Amarkov moo! 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was never proved that he did use a meatpuppet, it could be Essjay's lover, we would never know, WP:AGF Jaranda wat's sup 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many other votes were from SPAs? BTW, it's impossible for anyone to assume good faith with Essjay anymore. —M (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an extremely unprofitable and unhelpful speculation. Newyorkbrad 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essjay noms 

message: Is the "Scheduled to end" time in an RFA exactly that, a "schedule" - meaning that it is an approximate value to be used as a guide, or is if a "hard deadline" meaning that no further discussion is allowed.  I am asking this as a result of seeing this edit.  For this RFA, I suppose it could be that there is no 'crat available to perform the close, or the crats could be purposely allowing more time for comment, as the % is currently borderline. --After Midnight 0001 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be against a hard deadline. See also Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#Closure. Garion96 (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's approximate for the reasons that there may either be no 'crats around to close it, or it needs more time. Majorly (o rly?) 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *In this case there was a bureaucrat around 8 minutes after it closed. Not that a bureaucrat should be FORCED to check RfA before signing off of course. Still... --Durin 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed at length after my second (failed) RfA, which wasn't closed until 36 hours after its initial end date. Votes can be posted until the discussion is closed by a bureaucrat. Whether it's overdue because the crat decided to let it continue or simply because nobody was around to close it (both of which were the case for mine), editors may continue to voice their opinions. Hard deadlines are bad. Kafziel Talk 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be strongly opposed to any hard deadlines. Would that mean votes which come in after the deadline are ignored? This is pure instruction creep, should go to the same bin as the proposal limiting suffrage and the proposal meant to "educate" people about how to vote. Absolutely unnecessary, burdensome for people involved, and hard to enforce. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easy to enforce.  At the end of 7 days, simply add archival templates so people stop editing.   Then have crat(s) come back and convert it to pass or fail once a decision has been made.  Dragons flight 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point (I should have read the actual comment above first). The question which remains is whether this is necessary. I find UninvitedCompany's argument that the non-constant number of votes makes it harder for bureaucrats to promote unconvincing. I would be opposed to such a rule unless there are solid arguments as to why it is necessary. Otherwise it is a rule for its own sake. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is not that it makes it harder for bureaucrats to promote.  The problem is that it incentivizes the bureaucrats to close a close nomination without discussing it with other bureaucrats (except perhaps those who can be reached immediately e.g. on IRC), because the changing support percentage likely to occur if the vote is held open for a day while discussions with other bureaucrats take place is likely to make said discussion moot.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If that were true, it would auger for extending the comment period to, say, ten or fourteen days.  In close cases, the support percentage will tend to decline when votes are added after the deadline.  I don't believe the extra oppose votes have the effect of improving the overall quality of the decisions.  RFA is, at this juncture, very much about the process of voting, not one of people saying how they feel.  The impact of extra time is more votes, not more opinions.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadline for editing an RFA 

message: I'm guessing this has been covered before, but could RfBs be listed above the RfAs? There's usually a gaggle of RfAs and with my small screen, I wouldn't notice an RfB listing without scrolling down. (Indeed, it seems I've missed a few recently). --Dweller 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticing RFBs is one of the things my summary is good for.  Dragons flight 14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason your summary isn't on the RfA page? I usually go to the WP:BN page to view.↔NMajdan•talk 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *The summary was added before and quickly ripped out. I think there was a second attempt too. --Durin 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I honestly don't care whether or not my summary (or anyone else's) appears on the RFA page or not.  Which is to say, whatever other people want is fine by me.  As a point of clarification, I only mentioned my summary rather than the one at BN by Tangotango because the latter does not include RFBs.  Dragons flight 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think it is fine at the bottom. There are fewer of them so it is normally empty so why put it at the top? If you're concerned about missing them just pay more attention to the TOC box as they would be listed there as well.↔NMajdan•talk 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I guess I wasn't clear in my first post. My screen size means that I see only the top part of the TOC box, which is always log-jammed with RfAs. I won't see RfBs unless I scroll down. Vice-versa, the problem wouldn't exist, as we get so few RfBs. --Dweller 15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The RfB belongs at the bottom I think. That section is empty most of the time, and it just would be a distraction on top. Logically it belongs at the bottom too, this page is primarily about requests for adminship, not bureaucratship. I understand your inconvenince with the small screen, but I think there are better reasons for keeping the RfB part down though. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An alternative would be to put up sort of brief note/banner (one line, different background) at the top of the page whenever (and it's rarely) there is an RfB in process.  Perhaps someone could mock up something for consideration?  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea. Alternatively, RfB could have its own page (WP:RFB?), which would crop up on watchlists whenever there's a change (though I'm guessing that's so obvious an idea that it's already been discussed/discounted). --Dweller 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be very, very rarely used though. I think it's just a case of checking the contents page regularly. Majorly (o rly?) 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Majorly and would like to say that many people might not check it because of the lack of candidates and thus wouldn't vote on them when they do come. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought Oleg's response summed it up.↔NMajdan•talk 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess "because A comes before B" isn't a good reason then? Cbrown1023 talk 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA page layout suggestion 

message: Considering the recent cases of the Yanksox wheel war and the Essjay controversy, is anyone still under the naive impression that adminship is, to quote the founder, "no big deal?" —M (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being a big deal doesn't mean it can't be abused, nor does it mean that it shouldn't be removed if you do abuse it. And if Essjay were just an administrator, then nobody would have cared. But he was also a bureaucrat. And Oversight. And Checkuser. And Arbcom member. And he probably had some permission I don't even know about. And he was a press representative for Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malber, you may wish to rephrase your statment: one might interpret it to mean that Mr. Wales is naïve. Cbrown1023 talk 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Adminship is not big deal, as it does not convey any special authority, only ability. De-admining is a big deal because it is usually the result of a breach of trust. Like a janitor that uses his keys to steal change from lockers getting caught and fired is a big deal, but hiring a janitor is not a big deal. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed Yaksha's point... If the system says the janitor will only be removed if they do something really bad, or the janitor is being hired for a high-security position and has potential to do a lot of harm (think an airport), then hiring a janitor certainly is a big deal. -- Renesis (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Except there is nothing about an admin that makes it high security. Oversight, yes. Checkuser, yes. Not admin. Viewing deleted pages isn't a special case of security. If there's anything damaging in a deleted page, it gets oversighted. --Durin 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *:I don't necessarily mean that kind of security... I think admins have a lot of responsibility to be careful not to harm other users.  A lot of actions that admins can take can harm our editors, including blocks, threats of protection to solve disputes, and general incivility using their perceived rank.  These actions can do a lot of damage to the real foundation of Wikipedia - the editors creating it. -- Renesis (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you give out the admin bit liberally, you remove the rank aspect of it entirely. That's part of the problem; adminship has been turned into a "rank" that is sought by people. Look at Wikipedia:Admin coaching. People need coaches in order to be trusted with tools? *boggle* If adminship were sent back to being no big deal, this problem would evaporate. --Durin 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There are complaints about a gridlocked circle here, and unfortunately they are true. People can't be less harsh until there's a reasonable method for desysopping, or too many people who don't do well will slip through, with no guarantee there will be a way to remove them. But at the same time, people can't set up an easier method for desysopping until RfA is less harsh, or people who were once desysopped might never be able to be an admin again, even if the intent was just to show they weren't ready yet. Both sides are perfectly reasonable, so something is going to have to break before anything happens. Unfortunately, when this was easy to change, there was no need for an easier desysopping process than Arbcom, so nobody bothered to make one. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think we should have considerable faith that ArbCom and/or Jimbo can come up with an efficient, workable desysopping process if it becomes a problem. I think people are operating under the failed notion that what an admin can do is tremendously more bad than what a user can do to Wikipedia. Take comparison; newbie user blanks a page (this effectively deletes it, if temporarily). What happens? Someone comes along and undeletes it. Ok, let's say an admin goes rogue and deletes something. OH MY GOD IT WAS DELETED! Except, it too can be undeleted. There isn't anything...anything...that an admin can do that can not be undone. Why the fear? It just doesn't make any sense. If an admin goes nuts and starts whacking things (users, images, pages) seriously out of process, then another admin can warn them, just like we'd warn a user blanking pages. If they refuse to abide by the warnings, we block them. If they unblock themselves, off to ArbCom they go and *whack* they get de-adminned. This isn't brain surgery. The admin buttons aren't important. So you can delete things. Big whoop. So you can rollback, yawn...we've got what, dozens of tools that can do that now? So you can protect. Uh, wow <cough>. --Durin 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *:Per my comment above, you are thinking about it from a very technical perspective.  The community damage that admins can (and, in too many cases, do) cause can't be undone. -- Renesis (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Could you cite some examples? Maybe there are. I just don't see how an admin can do something that either (a) can't be undone or (b) can't be done by a regular non-admin. --Durin 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Although being a sysop does not give you any higher authority, it is in ways a big deal because the extra tools could potentially seriously damage wikipedia, however I do agree with Jimbo's statement on another page.Regards - Tellyaddict 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *What serious damage? Everything, everything, that an admin can do is undoable. Block someone? You can unblock. Deleted an article? Undelete. Delete an image? Undelete. Protect a page? Unprotect. If an admin went insane and started mass deleting articles they would be blocked faster than a rabbit can run from a rabid dog. No serious damage would happen, and it would all be undone in rapid fashion. --Durin 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ways that an admin can do serious harm (I can think of one that would need huge amounts of labour by sysops to fix or intervention by the developers for 1 minute of attack), but I'm not going to state for the sake of BEANS.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, objections to admin candidates rarely occurs based on worries that we don't know if they will be directly malicious with the tools but experience or competence. It is accurate to say someone acting in good faith cannot do much harm with the admin tools. JoshuaZ 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While technical harm is revertible and can be stopped quickly, an admin acting in good faith but with poor policy experience or a short temper for criticism can cause much more drama than a regular user. —dgiestc 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *If you remove the aspects of adminship having essence of rank and privilege, that vanishes. Admin should be renamed "janitor", and bureaucrat "minimum wage civil functionary" :) --Durin 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The only serious damage I can think of is if an admin unprotected the main page or something else highly visible. Of course it would be undone in a minute but a lot of wikipedia's credibility would be lost. Images of penises (is that the correct plural?) would fill the main page for a short while but no lasting damage can be done. I agree that all admin actions are undoable and serious damage is impossible. James086Talk 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They've already been there, and it wasn't unprotected. That led to cascading protection's coming. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user above said that if an admin goes on a rampage they could just be blocked. They cannot just be blocked.. They must be de-sysopped. Admins can unblock themselves (though they're not supposed to, but try telling that to an admin going crazy). --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are nearly always stewards available should such a thing happen. Majorly (o rly?) 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Direct your attention to the speed at which Essjay was desysopped on meta (see "Requests for permissions" archives). Cbrown1023 talk 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is basically always a steward available for contact via IRC, if an emergency was to occur. Daniel Bryant 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #wikimedia-stewards (or something like that :)) is probably the best place to find them (if you one you know isn't on). Cbrown1023 talk 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To comment on Yaksha's statement, until I read this section of this very talk page, I thought admins were more aristocrats than janitors. There are probably others with the aristocrat theory in mind as well... Captain panda In vino veritas 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still no big deal? 

message: *At the German Wikipedia (the second largest by edit count), there is no bureaucrat discretion. It's 66% up/down vote with suffrage requirements. I had extensive discussions with two people familiar with their RfA and the adminship pool in general there yesterday. In general, the adminship pool is regarded pretty well. They do have de-adminships, but they do so without any functioning ArbCom, and no Jimbo stepping in either, and it is rare. 
*Interestingly, if you look at the history of this talk page, we get about 31 edits to this page per day (judging by the last 5000 edits). There, with 1/5th the number of admins, and 1/3rd the number of articles, they have 1/10th of the traffic (under 3 edits per day) at their RfA. There seems to be considerably less controversy there. --Durin 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "bureaucrat discretion," to the extent it exists at all, is another artifact.  The way it used to work was that there was no concept of "closing" a nomination.  Developers would occasionally look through the page and make promotions, noting this fact on the page.  Any decision not to promote was tacit.  Others would then archive the page eventually.  At first, the bureaucrats were like that too, and there was no expectation that an RFA would close at a particular time, just that they would be left open for at least 7 days.  Bureaucrats would promote whoever they felt met the threshold, and didn't remove "failed" nominations.  That changed around the point when Cecropia became highly involved, at which time the concept that bureaucrats were supposed to "close" failing nominations gained currency.  Before long, it became tradition that only bureaucrats could "close" failing nominations, and that's where we are now.  When the percentages started to govern, the "discretion" range was a tip of the hat towards m:Voting is evil.  We should get rid of it.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree with many of the points Durin and UninvitedCompany are making here. The exceptional pace at which we are filling up the WT:RFA archives isn't really bearing useful fruit for the Wikipedia project. So at that point why not just eliminate all the controversy and go with a straight vote, perhaps except for discounting disruption such as sockpuppets. The current system does seem to be working as a %1 "failure" rate is about as good as you can get in a human process considering it is impossible to fully predict the future. And while I do currently put a large amount of effort into the few RfA's that are close to the discretionary range to weight the arguments, look for disruption, etc, I can't point to any hard evidence that the end result is substantially better than a straight up down vote, nor that anyone could make it so.  But with the evidence that we are significantly wasting edits and time on controversy that we don't need, and no evidence that the result is substantially better, perhaps that means we should eliminate it. But since any threshold is essentially arbitrary, we could just stick with the 75% we have now or move to 66%. I don't see it making much difference which number is chosen. Then the few bad apples that do make it through (and they will in any system) can be dealt with as needed. - Taxman Talk 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is made into a straight vote, I believe that also would address a large problem with RFB.  Namely, that people are scared of making more bureaucrats because of the potential impact a bureaucrat might have via his "discretion".  If the expectation is fixed and rigid then there is a lot less ambiguity about what is appropriate.  Dragons flight 00:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I think the failure rate of this process is much higher than 1%, unless you feel that promoting qualified candidates is not one of the goals here. In fact, on nominations in the 70-75% range the failure rate is probably closer to 100% than 0%. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good analysis.  I think changing the threshold would change voting patterns somewhat, both by discouraging "power votes" (i.e. oppose votes towards the end that sink a nomination) and by encouraging the "mild oppose" voters to actually oppose rather than declare themselves neutral.  I would like to believe that this would not change the overall figures that much but would improve the quality of the decisionmaking.  (I also realize that this is probably wishful thinking). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One potential issue I see with the straight vote is the "Esperanza effect".  You get a block of people that vote for their friends and those votes can overwhelm any reasonable opposition.  Maybe this is more of a perceived problem than a real one, but I definitely had the sense for a while there that the Esperanza effect was not only real, but was getting to the point where it might start promoting poor candidates against community consensus.  I like the safety valve of the bureaucratic discretion if for no other reason than to dissuade people of the idea that voting blocks would go unchallenged. —Doug Bell talk 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that's the idea, but we can't really use it now as it is. There is endless controversy any time anything is done outside the strict numerical guidelines. And the discretionary range is so narrow that we can't really fix many problems now anyway. If the type of thing you are talking about goes on, the best we can do is have people point out that such is happening and if there is general agreement there is a problem with an RfA then we can call for special treatment. That would essentially be the same with or without a discretionary range. The good thing about the way RfA works is people can take into account the reasoning of others and formulate or change their position accordingly. That will still be able to happen. - Taxman Talk 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if Taxman, Durin, and I are all behind this maybe it's worth a vote.  I would suggest that we shoot for a 66% threshold, since it has worked well at de: and there seems to be some support for it here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing discretion and controversy

message: Neutral and willing to step down/recalled from adminship if the community decides, the reason why chacor voted twice in my rfa was my fault and I apologize for this, Chacor contacted me in IRC right after he opposed my rfa via his NSLE nic, he was that I'm in rfa again, and I was thinking about the chacor account being strange as a new editor finding RFA so quick, I guessed NSLE was chacor so he said don't tell anyone and that he will use his NSLE account to support and cancel out the vote, I should have declined, but i wasn't really paying attention to the rfa anyways (had major arm surgery a few days back and was under the effect of painkillers and typing with one hand) so I ignored it, i wasn't following the rfa much thinking it was going to be another failure, it was nothing to do with blackmail and that kind of crap, it was Chacor decision. Sorry about this and I'll be willing to step-down from adminship and try again in several months if asked. Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh.  Whatever.  Doesn't bother me.  I might care more if he used two accounts to support you, but he used one to oppose and one to support (...).  Opposes are given much more weight than supports, and you passed.  To my knowledge you've been a good admin (which is really the only thing that matters).  Summary: let's move on.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. We need more admins not fewer. You've done a good job and that speaks for itself. I think the apology is sufficient. If you feel penance is necessary, feel free to clear out some of the backlog at CAT:CSD. WjBscribe 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bbatsell and WJB: this is not worth revisiting.  Bucketsofg 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  from chacor RFA 

message: Can we really have too many? Perhaps we should simplify the system to basic principles, a) Can we trust this user, b) Does the user want to help Wikipedia as a sysop? Perhaps an RfC type style would be more better for RfA, e.g:
 == Do you trust [..] and why? ==
 * Because xyz has exerted very good knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies I have the utmost trust in xyz. ~~~~
 * I can not trust this user as he was recently blocked for vandalism. ~~~~
 == How do you think xyz can help Wikipedia? ==
 * Indeed I do, I believe he would be very helpful at [[WP:RFPP]] being able to un-/protect pages [..] ~~~~
 * No I don't. The user does not exhibit any requirement for the buttons. ~~~~
 == Do you believe xyz having sysop abilities would benefit Wikipedia? ==
 * Yes, I do. Allowing xyz the buttons would greatly benefit Wikipedia, xyz has shown commitment to the project, thus I have no reason to believe the promotion would not benefit Wikipedia. ~~~~
 * No I do not, I believe it would be a mistake to give a past vandal the buttons. ~~~~
An example of three questions, each with an example answer for an RfA, positive and negative. A system like this would make it more a consensus building discussion and make it much more easy for our bureaucrats to make the decision to promote, or not. Finally it would also enable us to phase out percentages. Matthew 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like this idea a lot. The only thing I would do is add "yes", "no", and "other" subsections to each question, to make it more easier to sort. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is how I usually look at a candidate now. I am not as concerned about the person actually using the sysop tool as I am about the person being a trusted user. Surely, if a person is nominated, they will use the tools at some point or another. Given the backlogs that currently exist, more admins are needed. I, personally, I get irritated at the backlog at places like :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and currently there is a longer-than-average backlog at :Category:CSD. How do you think this format would affect community involvement in the RfA process?↔NMajdan•talk 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can only really see benefits, we must emphasize Wikipedia is built-upon discussion and consensus and not voting, presently we have supports/opposes and neutrals that give no reason as to why they take said action, I believe we'd see less of this. Also I do believe community involvement would be more productive if we could operate like this, finally it would be less about "supporting" or "opposing", but rather stating feelings and reasoning, thus the scenario of numbers would also be gone and bureaucrats would have an easier job of deciding if the user has community support, or not. Matthew 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a proposed guideline page (maybe "RFA based on question") should be made for the discussion of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been suggested before... Splash - tk 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Too many"