User:Useight/RFA Subjects/RFA is broken

RfA is broken, in my opinion (Archive 30)

Hello RfA regulars - This might be just my own opinion of the matter, and I don't expect it to be held by others; however, am I the only person to think that RfA seems to be fundamentally in need of an overhaul?

The name itself suggests so, since "Request for Adminship" suggests a request being made for adminship, not a vote to determine suitability for granting adminship - it should be called VfA if it really is a vote.
In addition, civility has completely vanished in certain circumstances, leading to adminship requests being used as a manner of putting good faith users down, often for nothing more than being yet to contribute a particularly large quantity to a particular area of Wikipedia. Since the majority of RfAs appear to be nominations by others, rather than self-nominations (possibly due to the stigma attached to it) it would seem quite wrong that people should be criticised to the degree they are when they themselves have not directly requested it. It is no wonder, I believe, that users feel disgruntled with the process, since the level of animosity and unkindness involved here has far surpassed levels of decency.
Edit counting is a key issue, in my opinion, too. At present, the vast majority of RfA votes appear to be based on numeric edit counting, via the determination of whether a user meets appropriate edit count criteria (usually considered to be around 1500-3000 edits, depending on the person voting). Let me give an example - Say I write a whole article, carefully proof read it, and save the page. I would get 1 edit. If I corrected 4 minor typos in that article, I would get 75% more edits - in short, receiving more credit for doing less work. In addition, drawing and uploading a map or diagram only earns 1 "point". I hardly think this is a valid means for determining the level of contribution a user has made, and to me at least it would appear to set a concerning example towards large numbers of trivial or low-quality edits rather than working on harder tasks and careful attention to detail. Moreover, what is to say a user who has not yet contributed a large quantity of edits is not a responsible admin? So long as they've been on Wikipedia for some time, learned how things are done, and helped out a bit, they may well make an excellent administrator.
The method of determination of votes, and the current voting procedure, would appear to be totally silly. Why this 85% support requirement? All it takes at present is for five or six users of a like mind to vote Oppose on an RfA that otherwise was dominated by support votes, despite the fact that the majority of the votes were Support. I also hold the view that the word "Oppose" is fundamentally unpleasant to the user being considered for adminship, and it may be better to split votes into "Support / Not Support" rather than "Oppose/Neutral/Support".
Subjectivity of bureaucrat opinion is an additional problem. Different bureaucrats appear to have different ideas according to what constitutes consensus on RfA, and I have seen some votes be closed as No Consensus that had a higher support vote than others which had been closed with a Support consensus. I think there should be some kind of more rigid criterion for determining the status of an RfA.

I would be most grateful if people would give me their opinion on the above, and possibly come together in an effort to address the above issues.

Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull 17:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Answering you, YES, it's broken. That's the "problem." I offer a solution: Let's vote on these proposeals here and at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Issue_2:_The_.22What_is_a_Fac.22_standard, a related proposal. Then, no matter what the outcome, let's follow the rules -for all.--GordonWatts 17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

- Nick, in reguards to your method of thinking...

I don't think the name itself is not a problem. I personally don't see why ppl would confuse a request from a voting process.
Following the current policy (whatever it is) is more important than the name.--GordonWatts 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
From my own RfA, I don't think civility is an issue. Everyone had good reasoning for me not being an admin, and comments were not shall we say "over the top".
Most of my opponents were civil, but there still was a lot of throwing of words, and I took the greatest heat and targetting of abuse. I did not complain; I merely replied and rebutted politely but firmly most times.--GordonWatts 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. I did see some throwing of words, but IMO most (the majoraty of ppl) who come to this page and either vote and/or give an oppinion are not ppl who are out to get you, though that doesn't say that no one will snap at you. My best policy on those who do toss crap is to ignore them, and if they persist, contact and admin/bureaucrat or the aberation (sp?) commitee about the problem. --Admiral Roo 18:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I do agree on the count of editing. If one were to have an extreamly low count (like say, 50 in only three months), that may warrent oppisition for the request. But higher counts (say 200+) should not warrent neither opposition nor acceptance. I think that the content of a person's edits should outweigh the number of edits s/he has.
I think that the intent of the person is more important the numbers, but you have to have a few edits to have a basis to get by.--GordonWatts 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I totally understand what you are saying in the method of determination of votes section.
He probably means that 55-60% should be enough. I agree.--GordonWatts 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that you cleared that up for me, I do agree with you and Nick. IMO it is kind of rough to judge a count baised on an 85% consensus, compaired to a 55-60% consensus. --Admiral Roo 18:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Finnaly, I think their will always be a debate between bureaucrats on what constitutes for a consnsus. Voting in nature is not always clear cut in my opinion.

--Admiral Roo 17:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, how do I fix my numbering system in here? --Admiral Roo 17:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just delete the blank lines between the points. Did it for you. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

- Thank you BD2412. Much appreciated. :) --Admiral Roo 18:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's criticism of the RFA process (Archive 31)

This discussion underscores how ugly the process for rewarding merit on the wikipedia is. That people determine who should and should not weild admin powers while making moronic comments such as the above is a clear indication that this is a failed process.

Voting is anti-wiki~!

The majority has no claim to the truth. Sam Spade 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Adminship is not "merit." It's a set of extra housekeeping buttons. Also notice this is requests for adminship, not votes. android79 18:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the name hardly changes anything though, does it? The fact remains that, on AfD and RfA, what is accepted in the end is not concensus but a large majority (upwards of 2/3 on AfD, 80% or so for RfAs), really. It's all good and fine to say we operate on concensus, but what's really happening is not that. In real concensus (and even in the WP version), if there are people who actively oppose a proposal—even just one person—you don't have consensus, and the proposal falls. On WP, we regularly close debates on AfDs, RfAs, VfUs and other three-letter acronyms which have people virulently saying that the action being taken (whether support or oppose) is unacceptable for the community. That's not concensus, that's just majority rules with a large majority. I'm not saying I agree with Sam, necessarily, but I do recognize that our "community concensus" is just a thinly veiled democracy. --Blackcap | talk 18:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  - The name is irrelevant. No absolute vote-counting is done, either on RFA or AFD. The closing 'crat or admin determines if there is a (rough) consensus based on the discussion that ensues. It's not quite what it ought to be, but it's not a strictly democratic process, either. Whatever it is, it works reasonably well. android79 19:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    - I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just not concensus. It's a majority. Don't get me wrong, I think it works fine, but I do think that we should call a spade a spade. --Blackcap | talk 19:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  - VfU is all about vote counting - that's what is used to justify decisions there. Plus nearly AfD I've been a part of the closing admin uses the number of votes (counted) to justify the closing of the "discussion". Not that I think its right... but there seems to be an insistance to call apples oranges... maybe it should be different, but that's the way it currently is. Feel free to disagree, of course :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Sam, I would appreciate it if you could identify which comments in particular you find "moronic" and exactly what alternate views one with a greater intellect might hold. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- If that's not a baiting comment, I don't know what is. What's the point in being insulting? --Blackcap | talk 19:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll take the bait. IMO there is a clique, which dominates this article, much as there are cliques that dominate other articles or topics. These are not always the same people, or a "cabal", or any other sort of nutter fluff, but subculturesque cliques, similar to what is found among adolescents, or among employees in nearly every workplace. Its very mundane stuff.

Anyways, this group uses code words, jargon, netspeak, or whatever you want to call it, and is otherwise completely out of touch w the outside world. The above I found a good example of that. These "learned elders", those who determine who is and is not a trusted user, (hardly anybody votes) carrying on in such a manner struck me as notably absurd. Sam Spade 20:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a self-perpetuating problem, Sam - those who vote regularly become familiar with the process to the point where fully expressing what will generally be understood in a few short code words will seem like a waste of time. I'm sure there are plenty of editors out there who are not even aware that they can vote on (or become) admins. The solution is to convince a larger segment of the Wiki population to take the time to come here and express their views on candidates (or on the process itself). -- BD2412 ^talk 21:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot randomly selects users for moderation. Perhaps somebody should set up a bot which periodically randomly selects a logged in user from recent changes and posts on their talk page an encouragement to visit and participate in WP:RFA (or any of the other processes that could use more involvement). Jdavidb 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Sam has a good point. He is a good editor, has made a huge contribution to WP, and while he may get into edit and content disputes, he has more than proved himself that he would not go on a vandalism rampage or something of the sort if he were given admin tools. But he would never pass an RFA - my feeling is, largely because of his political views. This suggests that the system is broken. Admins should not be selected on the basis of popularity, and they should not be selected on the basis of their sociopolitical views. You should support an admin who you feel you know well enough to judge that they will not use the extra tools in a way that will hurt Wikipedia, and you should vote against people that, based on their actions, you think would use the tools to the detriment of Wikipedia. I think this obsession with edit summaries is bad - an RFA is the perfect time to ask someone to be polite - but I don't see why you should refuse adminship on the basis of popularity and the person's use of language like "moronic". Guettarda 21:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. The Rfa is deeply flawed in many ways and should be abandoned and replaced with something else, SqueakBox 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If I have had a dispute with some users, they may feel that I will misuse the tools - which is pretty much the same as saying that I am not popular. IMO, any user who can be trusted as a non-vandal and has a decent number (say, 500) edits should be made an admin without going through the messy business of voting. Tintin 22:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, 1500 edits and I would agree, SqueakBox 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you determine "who can be trusted as a non-vandal"? Letting the bureaucrats do it is cabalistic, as there will always be controversial cases. If there's some method other than voting for getting community input and ensuring that it will be acted upon, I don't know it. ~~ N (t/c) 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not getting blocked during 1500 edits? SqueakBox 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just think how many problems it would solve if we had 10,000 or so more admins. IMO the bar should involve knowledge of the process and vested interest in assisting the community. Those who are shown to abuse the office should be removed, but why have apopularity contest to get in? What purpose does that serve? Sam Spade 22:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is the popularity contest that makes the Rfa so flawed, SqueakBox 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you do something unpopular, like be uncivil, you don't deserve the tools. The users who are 'popular' here are the ones who go out of their way to be nice to people. Popularity, though its not really segmented at wikipedia, is earned and deserved, and if you go around trolling, guess what, not popular :O R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the difficulty of removing sysop rights from editors who misuse them or are abusive is a problem. Solve that problem, and I bet you'll find people are much more willing to trust others with sysop rights to begin with. Friday (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, you got to screw up BIG time for that, a la 172 or wt:User:Wonderfool... R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is abundant evidence that users who go out of their way to be nice to others get rejected. Part of the problem with the popularity contest method is the number of editors who quit for ever in disgust, SqueakBox 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who go out of their way to be nice to others get rejected? Where? I passed basically on those grounds myself. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Redwolf24. My RfA succeeded largely due to my being nice. It certainly wasn't due to my massive edit count (1000 at the time). — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well we could start with Sam Spade, SqueakBox 00:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ummm evidence?Geni 00:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

He welcomes a lot of new users. When I was new he went out of his way to be friendly by leaving a nice comment on my talk page (the welcome template had already been applied), though this debate is not about a particular user, SqueakBox 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to indent your replies so that this discussion is readable? --Blackcap | talk 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that the reason sam spade is not an admin has nothing to with his friendlyness.Geni 00:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would support Sam's adminship in a beat. He has been a great editor to work with on Human. What is the deal? I am missing something? ≈ jossi ≈ 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade would be the logical place to look.Geni 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, see no reason why Sam Spade (and Kappa) should not be admins right now. There's a world of difference between expressing strong views and being a threat to Wikipedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well we seem to have established that niceness isn't enough. I think many people on the Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts should be promoted automatically. "Many may not want to" may be indicative of many not wanting to go through the Rfa process, but still be desiring of the extra privileges, SqueakBox 01:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate, if you've done something uncivil quite recently or if you're generally disliked, there's a reason behind it. People on that list being promoted automatically has some flaws, among them being the fact that Wik is in the top 10... Also it pushes more editcountitus upon us, as we've said before, edit counts aren't everything. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sam's Rfa is a good advert for why we should abandon the process, SqueakBox 03:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Uhh.......................

WikiAnarchy? Sam must have done something to warrant the oppose votes, and just because you don't like the results isn't a reason to abandon a process. We can't just say oh, 10,000 edits, you're an admin now... why? Because if we did, Wik would be an admin. And many other trolls could exploit this. Just because of unsatisfaction with one RfA doesnt mean we should get rid of the whole thing, think of all the trolls who RfA has stopped, like User:Rainbowwarrior1977's several attempts. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, how about this and this - a fine editor blackballed by a vocal minority for being an "inclusionist". Let's drop the approval threshold to 2/3, it should be as easy for an editor to get the mop as it should be to delete an article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Kappa is a great guy, I'm not here to argue that. However adminship should be more important than deleting an article. Consider things like Wonderfool deleting the main page at wiktionary. Yes, he had a solid majority of votes (though only like five people voted) but still, it should be a supermajority, and a high one at that. I guess it makes sense to oppose Kappa on those grounds as what if he went AfD closing and he didn't respect consensus (though I think he would). Which would be worse, we delete the wrong article, or we give the wrong person RfA tools :-/ R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

But we should trust Kappa of all editors to not delete things that ought not be deleted - and really, since any admin can delete stuff, it's the restraint that's important. Besides, admin tools can be taken away if misused, and I question the logic of denying those who can potentially do plenty of good work the ability to shoulder part of that burden. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes admin tools can be taken away after a long and lengthy process (though if blatent probably asap) but damage is harder to reverse than just deleting the wrong article in an AfD and having it restored. Anyways I'm going to bed, nice debating :P R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The process of determining adminship and for deleting articles are the weakest points of the wikipedia. They are the weakest because they betray our ideals in an inefficient manner contridictory to common sense, designed to insult and shame those who should be recieving our encouragement andf affirmation. How ever long it takes, the process is broken and must be fixed. Sam Spade 13:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually thhink the weakest point of wikipedia is not telling newbies that if they don't sign up for an account they leaver their IP address for all to see, SqueakBox 15:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Another view: RfA is not broken

With some notable exceptions, the current RfA process serves us just fine. There's always a potential for cliquish behavior, but that's true of all social spaces. Cliquishness aside, RfA as it stands now has one fundamental advantage over other systems for selecting administrators: it allows for open discussion of a candidate's suitability for adminship. If RfA needs any change, it would be to give more emphasis to discussion and less to "voting". A simple solution would be to end the practice of separating "support" and "oppose" votes, combining votes and comments just like the various deletion and FA discussion pages.

Determining a candidate's suitability for adminship is not just a matter of mathematics: edit counts, namespace distribution, etc. As Redwolf24 has noted, Wik would easily become an administrator if we strictly followed edit counts as a qualification for adminship. (For those unfamiliar with the Wik fiasco, he was hard-banned by Jimbo for threatening to destroy Wikipedia with a vandalbot if Jimbo did not ban a user he was engaged in conflict with, a threat he carried out in June 2004; see User:Vandalbot and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz). Other clearly unsuitable users with edit counts above 10,000 include Lir (one of Wikipedia's most notorious trolls) and JillandJack (a sockpuppet of hard-banned User:DW). RfA helps us avoid such pitfalls by giving the community a valuable opportunity to decide whether a potential admin has our trust and to address potential concerns. Of course there are problems, but when it comes to the basic underpinnings and principles behind RfA, what other options are there? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 09:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think people rarely question/comment on other peoples votes/comments because they don't want to appear they are campaigning or POV pushing, thus we have a situation where people are voting as they would in a general election, and not discusing issues. What we need is to make it clear that it is perfectly ok to question other peoples votes, and that votes with no comment or obvious reason (e.g. boothy) are almost worthless. Martin 10:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree that it's more than OK to comment on other people's votes. The only thing that's not 100% kosher is when the subject of an RfA makes belligerent arguments against every oppose vote against him or her, which has happened recently. As for explaining one's own votes, I can't think of too many greater slaps in the face than an oppose vote with no comment, or with a blatantly stupid reason. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 11:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that RfA, while having some flaws, is not broken. Have there been any cases of a Wikipedian promoted through RfA that we later regret? There's only precious few of those cases. In either case, we cannot judge adminship solely from the amount of time here, or the number of edits. Doing so would prove catastrophic, as noted above. And Szyslak, did you mean 2004 instead of 1994? I don't think Wikipedia was around back then... heck, was the internet around back then? :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, 2004. :-) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rfa's are truly the ugly side of wikipedia, and in many cases are little more than troll bait for some to insult and disparage others. We are not paid to be here., this is a voluntary process. When people put in hundreds of hours of works to then be told to f off iut is not surprising so many leave. Defending this trollbaiting process is ultimately defending the unacceptable side of wiklipedia, SqueakBox 15:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought a test to test people's knowledge of how wikipedia works technically, (ie how many admins don't know how to archive a talk page properly?) and re policy, + no blocks for the previous 3 or even 6 months would be a better process without the inherent design flaws that (a) the current process is turning people away from wikipedia in disgust, and (b) would eliminate the ignorance of procedure that many admins show). There would be a sense an admin had worked to get where they were not won a popularity contest, thus admins would be more respected than is the case today, SqueakBox 15:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a serious problem with the technical competence of most admins or adminship candidates. Most admins that I have dealt with tend to stay within their areas of competence—if they don't know how to perform some of the more arcane administration-related tasks, they tend to leave those tasks to others. Even if a new–or old–admin does something that's not strictly in line with policy or normal procedures, usually it's possible to take them aside and straighten up any problems.

The largest challenges that most admins face are related not to techniques but to people. The RFA process entails a necessarily critical (though hopefully not cruel) examination of the candidate's ability to interact well with others on Wikipedia. It is also a practical test of that ability—we get to see how the candidate responds to criticism, fair and otherwise. (An admin who can't handle unreasonable people or criticism is going to burn out very rapidly.) We're looking for admins who are polite and courteous, and who exercise their common sense.

In terms of setting a test of Wikipedia policy knowledge or a restriction on editors who have been blocked...I'm not sure that either is necessary. Instances of policy ignorance tend to be brought up at RFA anyways, as do recent blocks. Imposing a hard policy would just hamstring the community if we wanted to make an exception under extenuating circumstances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Szyslak, you say I can't think of too many greater slaps in the face than an oppose vote with no comment, or with a blatantly stupid reason. but you are encouraging the process by supporting an Rfa process that encourages people to slap others in the face, SqueakBox 15:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The idea of RFA "turning people away" makes me wonder. Is this really a recurring problem, or have there just been one or two cases? I've only been watching them for a month or so now, but I haven't seen that they're particularly ugly. I can think of a recent case where an editor said he was leaving due to failed RFA, but that same editor had said he was leaving WP a couple times before that already. To me it seems fairly clear that by going thru RFA, you're inviting others to scrutinize your editing behavior. There's nothing wrong with this; on the contrary, it's a good and desirable thing. Friday (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been a regular watcher of RfA, and I can only think of a few rare cases in which people were so disgruntled at their RfA that they left. The only person whom I can think of off the top of my head is the second RfA of ThomasK. Who were you thinking of, Friday? In any case, I don't think that people leaving because of RfAs is a huge problem. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Tainted votes (Archive 35)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Email_campaigns

I think AE's RfA has shown very clearly that RfA is broken. Whether or not the campaign against AE is motivated by religious bias (I feel it was, but there are only a handful of votes that explicitly cite his religion as a reason to oppose), there have been at least two campaigns to motivate users to vote against this user.

I think this vote is tainted, but more importantly, it goes back to this issue that RfA is broken. Guettarda 13:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that without this "campaign" he would've been promoted? In what way does it break RfA? I don't understand at all. Grue 14:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't say. He has 58 support votes - but many of them may be in response to the opposition. The problem is that people are campaigning to oppose this editor. I was shocked to get an email from someone I had never heard of before this RfA, calling on me (and others, it was a transparently mass email) to oppose this editor. Campaigning for votes is considered an abuse of process, and usually draws more oppose votes than it generates support votes. The opposite process, going out and campaigning against a nominee, skews things similarly, but much more effectively, since each oppose vote cancels out 4 support votes.

A spam campaign, off Wikipedia, is much worse because it is invisible to the community at large.

The point isn't AE's RfA. I trust you (Grue) to make a fair vote. I don't trust every editor to do so - especially in this case, where they have been votes motivated by religious bias. Given the disproportionate weight of oppose votes, any campaign against an editor taints the process. Guettarda 14:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that RFA is broken. It may do with some tweaks, yes but in fact, I think it may be one of the most well-oiled processes in WP namespance.Borisblue 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How so? If people are launching spam campaigns to oppose editors, I'd say the process has been shown to be fatally flawed. In addition, there have been quite a few contentious RfAs recently in which it would appear that people are not basing their votes on the idea that adminship is no big deal. So, if adminship is no big deal, but people vote as if it were, the process is broken. Now, if people are launching attack campaigns - another flaw in the system is shown. This is not about voting, it's about consensus - consensus as to whether we know this person well enough to trust them with a few minor tools and one major tool - the ability to delete images. Guettarda 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at the big picture: by and large, reliable editors are getting promoted, unreliable ones aren't. No backlog, but a steady stream of admins is being turned out. The process is working fine. Borisblue 14:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll suggest another scenario - AE's RfA will probably get defeated this time and may come up again two months time. If I am one of the guys who are violently opposed to him, this is what I will do - Create three new accounts, one each from home, work and a friends dial up line. Make 50 edits from each in three different fields, and be careful that I use a particular account only from one place. When the RfA comes up again, I'll have three oppose votes ready. If three people do that, the RfA almost certainly won't go through. What can the current process do to prevent this ? Tintin 15:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't even have to do it from separate IPs - CheckUser takes up too much time and uses too many server resources to run on every controvertial vote. Guettarda 15:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the bureaucrats are well capable of sifting through an RfA to weed out inappropriately made votes. This is what we promote bureaucrats to do, and for the most part I think they are doing a very good job of it, with only occasional errors. AE's RfA is rapidly become the most voted on nomination in the history of RfA. It's not there yet, but it's well on the way. It is certainly (by far) the most opposed RfA since June (assuming all oppose votes are non-sock puppets). In my recollection, it's certainly generated the most debate. I think it's safe to say that AE's nom is an exception, and not the norm. Using such an exceptional case to identify problems within the RfA process is not a well based argument. --Durin 15:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

David has scratched one sockpuppet vote already. Guettarda 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how any of you can support someone like that, let alone allow them to have adminstrative powers, he'll run around deleting any articles that aren't attack peices on christianity--Sir.Salmon Fish ^{The First} 15:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like the weeding out process to be transparent. I can't remember seeing a bureaucrat mentioning in an RfA what votes were counted and what were not (usually it doesn't matter, though). Tintin 15:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Doing that would subject the bureaucrats to a hail storm of hate mail. They're doing their job, and doing it rather well. --Durin 15:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I hadn't realised that it was a deliberate decision to exclude it. Tintin 15:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the breakage. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there needs to be community input in the administrator-selection process, and in a community this large discussion alone is insufficient, and voting or a vote-like process is needed. Do you have a better idea? ~~ N (t/c) 15:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's broken for a number of reasons, but the relevant fact here is that, while solicitng "support" votes is generally a self-correcting process, soliciting "oppose" votes is not. Since such a tiny proportion of the community votes on any nom, a relatively small number of votes can swing the process one way or another. Guettarda 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Everybody knows where RFA is, so if they don't vote it's because they don't want to. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to prohibit soliciting opposes. ~~ N (t/c) 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A large number of those 'support' votes look awefully fishy to me, but I doubt any beurocrats are going to see it the same way, anything to defend this state of wiki:affirmative action, god forbid an editor who was actualy a christian, survive the same process--Sir.Salmon Fish ^{The First}File:Salmon.gif 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[This user has 14 votes and is probably a trolling sock - Guettarda 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)]

flawed jewel (Archive 38)

Today I was sorely tempted to pull an Ed Poor and delete RFA, luckily I came to my senses that it would be a bit too bold, would be a violation of WP:POINT and would be too crazy of a unilateral action to take not to mention countless other side issues it would cause.

I contend here and now that although it is not inherently flawed RFA has become flawed, RFA used to be an unbiased and untainted way for users who felt they had what it took to request community input on whether they were trustworthy enough to have adminship privileges. Over time this has been changed and dare I say corrupted by campaigning for and against canidates as well as being influenced by old grudges from long before the fight began and that adminship is now not determined by whether an editor is trustworthy enough and is not given out very liberally as originally intended but a canidate's worth has now been degraded to who's faction agrees with them and how much power that faction holds, who likes them and who doesn't, whether they're in the in crowd or whether they are not. I think anyone would be hard pressed to disagree with me when I say that this is not what the envisioned when RFA was originally implemented.

My suggestions for RFA are simple. Form a solution, even a temporary one, and use it to replace the current system. If the created system is only temporary then work as a community to create a more permanent one, one that works and one that is free from individual and group biases. I would also suggest getting the input from those who who envisioned and worked on the original RFA process and even from Jimbo himself if he is willing to comment on how to create this new system. I will be the first to admit that I do not have an answer to RFA nor do I have a way to solve it's problems, however I hope that the community as a whole can find a way to make RFA work. We have the technology, we can make it faster, better, stronger. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or are a lot more people getting admined now than they used to? People also seem to have many more votes than before (my RfA had somthing like 20 votes)- why do people bother to vote support when there are already an overwhelming number of supports? A while ago somebody (not that I remember who) was using a criteria that said that all admins had to have an FA to their name. Perhaps a concrete standard like that (that particular one seems a bit strict) could work. It wouldn't solve the factionalization though I personally haven't noticed such cabalish behavior. Are you looking for a complete overhaul or just different standards? Personally, I wonder if we should make vote soliciting against the rules? Broken S 02:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There are more editors now, and Wikipedia is growing faster, so I should hope that more people are getting adminship now than in the past. A more interesting question is how the ratio of successful/unsuccessful attempts has changed over time; but that is actually fairly hard to calculate, since unsuccessful attempts are not grouped by date. Naturally, the number of people voting in each attempt has also increased with Wikipedia's population. In successful nominations it does no harm; in close ones we can hardly forbid people from adding their vote; and plainly failing attempts generally get removed. But anyway, to get back to the main point: I agree that a few recent nominations (and some not-so-recent ones) have suffered from extreme amounts of factionalism... There are some people whose name, appearing on one side of a vote, is practically a guarentee of several other specific names on both sides. My general feeling, though, is that whatever course we take, we should try to stick to the principal that adminship is no big deal. The more admins we have, the less damage individual admins can do; making as many people as possible admins, then depending on them to watch each other strikes me as the closest we can get to the Wiki Way. Optimally, adminship should be automatic for anyone who wants the job and wouldn't abuse the position. --Aquillion 02:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

...Is a solution possible? Those seem more like problems with the community than the process. It is obvious that community input is necessary for adminship selection. The community is sufficiently large that a vote may be the only non-cumbersome way to get input. A vote will naturally lead to social issues. The current RFA process seems to be the least bad of all the bad choices. ~~ N (t/c) 02:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My assertion though is that there shouldn't be bad choices, whether through reform of the process or of the community there should be a way to find a good choie in all of this. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but that doesn't mean a good choice exists. I don't believe one does, aside from the fairly minor change of discounting unjustified "me-too" votes (and I'm not even sure that's a good idea). Getting proper community input (a vote or other objective measure, not evidence to sway a bureaucrat's subjective judgement) is not possible without making heated argument likely. The only way to fix that issue (to the extent that it can be fixed) is through changing social atmosphere. ~~ N (t/c) 03:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to restate a proposal that I made several weeks ago, and similar to that which R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) made earlier on this page - to divide the distribution of admin powers into at least two levels, with a lower threshold of support required to achieve less potent powers (e.g., the rollback button, the power to block only anonymous users, perhaps page protection), and a mentoring system for people in the higher level to assist those in the lower level. BD2412 T 02:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, blocking anon IPs requires much more care and skill than other blocks. It would probably be better to leave that to higher levels. Of course the software would need to be modified to enable the above (except for rollbacks which can apparently be provided to non-sysops in the current version of the software). --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternative

I agree that it's horrible right now. I was adminned just over six months ago, but if RFA had been as it is now I would have refused the offer. I could edit Wikipedia perfectly well without going through this bare-knuckle battle.

So, the beauty contest concept is becoming less useful. Here's an outline of a possible alternative:

Give admin powers only to people who demonstrate useful skills. An RC patroller who consistently gets high praise from his fellows, an AfD closer who does a good job, someone who cleans up copyright infringements, or one who lists them, someone who maintains one of the dispute resolution pages, or tracks down orphanned page protects and listed them on Wikipedia:Protect page, welcomes new editors, or maintains Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Someone who does a good job on these tasks for a couple of months is probably admin material.
Discount anyone who keeps getting involved in sterile edit wars. We've got enough edit-warring admins already.

The idea is to have published criteria. Someone would be nominated in the usual way. He can write a brief (250 words at most) candidacy address.

Anyone who likes (including the candidate) can then add single lines in a prescribed format of the form:

(list of diffs) "Brief and neutral description of useful task performed by candidate"
(list of diffs) "Brief and neutral description of sterile edit war involving candidate"

A bureaucrat decides at the end of the period whether to grant an admin bit to the candidate. He should use his common sense, and may wish to take into account the editing experience of the candidate as well as the evidence presented.

I bet it'll frighten away the RFA groupies and the edit counters, while permitting useful information to be quietly gathered and a good decision to be made. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 02:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A bureaucrat decides at the end of the period whether... that's making it too subjective and less transparent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What's transparent about an editor who just rolls up on RFA and types ~~~~ '''Support'''? Where's the objectivity? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, but anyone gets to do it, not just a bureaucrat. Just discounting votes that don't have a reason would fix that problem (although it has its own problems). Leaving the final decision up to the subjective, non-transparent judgement of an empowered class is oligarchy. I don't trust the bureaucrats enough to give them this level of (opaque, subjective) judgement, do you? ~~ N (t/c) 03:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrats closing noms based on diff and common sense makes it less transparent. Bureaucrats are there to enforce community decisions on adminships, not to make subjective calls. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would support Tony's proposal wholeheartedly. It is time the RfA process evolves to something better and devoid of political bias or being missused to castigate editors with opposing POVs. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As reform proposals go, it doesn't seem that bad. Two issues: one, it should be more flexible, allowing more reasons to oppose than just edit-warring. Two, again, subjective, opaque judgement of a bureaucrat is bad. ~~ N (t/c) 03:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternative 2: Adminship by "mini-RfC"

In the past 12 months Wikipedia has more than doubled in size: from 380,000 articles in November 2004 to 804,000 now, for an increase of 112%. Growth in total traffic has more than tripled during this year. The number of active admins, on the other hand, grew by only 74%, from 313 to 545 in this period. This means that the workload on each admin is much higher than it was a year ago, and it keeps getting worse. The reason we have more admins now is that we need more admins now. What we should now find is a method to recruit admins faster, without giving up quality. My solution includes two parts, drawing on some good ideas presented above by BD2412 and Tony Sidaway:

Adopt the new Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges, and assign the "rollback" privilege liberally (automatically?) to any registered user with a clean record (never blocked) who has been here for two weeks and amassed 150 edits. Having an army of well-equipped RC patrollers would take a good chunk of the workload off admins, allowing them to deal with trickier or more delicate tasks such as copyvios, AfDs, CSDs and such.
Modify the RfA process as follows: nominations would still appear here, but opinions, rather than votes, would be added by anyone who has something to say about the candidate. At the end of the seven day period, two bureaucrats would review the opinions as well as any evidence they choose to collect, and based on that and their own best judgment, issue a unanimous decision. If the nomination fails, the two "adjudicators" will issue a short justification for their ruling. Since the two adjudicators are assigned and announced at the time of nomination, they can—at their discretion—make a decision before the seven days are up, if they feel additional opinions are unlikely to change the outcome.

Using this system, "piling on votes" would be futile. Only people bringing something new to the table would have an impact on the outcome. Any "faction" or clique would be quickly recognized and discounted as such by our seasoned b'crats. Petty grudges, when such exist, would have to be supported by real evidence. And lastly, we would get the benefit of the judgment of two humans making a choice, rather than a blind algorithm counting votes. I expect most nominations to gather no more than a handful of opinions. Some would turn into a heated discussions, of course, but maybe rightly so. Repeat nominations of failed candidates would only accept new material; the pervious nom would be used as a baseline. Not all bureaucrats will be willing to take this job, but all we need is a few dedicated ones, and we're in business.

This may not be a perfect system, but I think it is a step in the right direction, and addresses many of the concerns voiced on this page. Do I hear a 'second'? Owen× ☎ 04:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, if the issues of transparency and oligarchy can be properly dealt with. I.e., the bureaucrats should have to provide a detailed rationale no matter what, and there needs to be an appeals process (at least for opponents to appeal promotions). I do think this would require many more bureaucrats, though - what you're describing is actually like a mini-arbitration case. ~~ N (t/c) 04:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The current system of making admins is fine, except this should be done: All "yes" votes for promotion should require no explanation, a simple "yes" should do. However, if you make every "no" voter be required to post a unique reason, at the tally, those "no's" with crummy reasons would be discarded for having not having met a reasonable objection threshold. In addition, use a "bot" that tags an editors user page with a "You can be an Admin" announcement -with easy to follow link that says "click here" to accept your nomination. The system "bot" can automatically nominate editors who reach certain thresholds. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, enforce editcountitis by 'bot. That'll be popular. -Splash^talk 14:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That, too, would be excellent (except for the bot). Bureaucrats should however have to provide reasons for accepting or discarding each vote. And explanations on 'support' votes should not be prohibited, although they shouldn't be required either. ~~ N (t/c) 15:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely shudder to think at the acrimony that will rapidly appear in the RfA process if bureaucrats are required to show their reasons for accepting or discarding each and every vote. If that happens, this process is doomed. No person in their right mind would ever want to become a bureaucrat. --Durin 17:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Before we can make changes, we have to clearly identify the problems

There's a call to make changes to RfA. Very well. Step 1: Identify what the shortcomings are. You have to do this before you can craft a solution; else you have no way of determining if your solution addresses the shortcomings. Without this, you're just as likely to make things worse as you are to make them better. What I've seen people say the shortcomings are of late (and my responses).

Incivility. This is an individual issue, and not a problem with RfA. RfA was plenty civil in the past. The process hasn't changed to cause it to become incivil. What has changed is our willingness to accept incivility in the process. That's not a fault of the RfA process. That's a fault of the contributors. Put blame where it belongs.
Campaigning for and against candidates: What I have seen over the last four months has been a number of candidates being roundly criticized for campaigning, and similar response to people campaigning against them. I simply don't see that this has been a problem. Cite examples if you want to make the case. Currently, I don't see it.
Factionalism: Again, I don't see it. I see quite a number of RfAs that have not become contentious in any respect. If cliques truly existed, it is again a fault of specific users and not a fault of RfA. If nominees who are not in the 'in' crowd are not getting in (this wasn't spoken, but implied) then how is it that User:Edcolins passed with barely a peep of opposition (only Boothy443 opposing). He's a patent lawyer, and hardly among the 'in' crowd. There might be certain groups of people heavily influenced by IRC. I can't speak to that as I personally refuse to be party to IRC.
Individual and group bias: Individual bias? How do you expect we can remove that and still have humans involved in the process? If we did it purely by machine, we still couldn't remove group bias. Any mechanism by which we attempt to develop consensus is going to inherently have bias. We can not be automatons that simply look at base facts and vote strictly based on binary qualities. No matter what system you design, there will be bias of one form or another.
Piling on of support votes: Since more people are on Wikipedia, more people are involved in RfA. Unavoidable. Unless you want to exclude people from the RfA process you can count on this being part of RfA. I readily grant it is not easily scalable, but I doubt there's any easier solution unless you layer in all sorts of instruction creep (perhaps things like...only allowed to vote thrice weekly or some other arbitrary restrictions on suffrage).

Opaque judgement of a bureaucrat is part of the current process. It is generally used in the 75% realm of RfAs. If the process were transparent, and a bureaucrat was obligated to show which votes were discounted, or what consensus they felt was stronger and why...I doubt there would be any people applying to be bureaucrats and the bureaucrats we have now would run screaming for the hills. The process would rapidly degenerate into accusatory pit brawls, with bureaucrats being in the center of it.

The measures of Wikipedia growth used to show why admins aren't being promoted fast enough suffer from being indirect measures of how much work admins need to do. There's a presumption that the amount of work has increased in direct propotion to the growth. This could be very, very wrong in either direction. At least one person did a very (very) small study on the incidence of vandalism. We need a more comprehensive study before we can say with any firmity that we are not promoting admins rapidly enough.

As for having a featured article to a nominee's name; can anybody...anybody...provide a reference to an article that was crafted by one single individual that made it to FA status? Such articles aren't the work of a single individual. An article getting to FA status isn't the credit of one single person.

If people are curious, I can provide statistics on any number of different takes on the RfA process as it has progressed since June 23rd of this year when I began keeping detailed statistics. As memory serves, I don't think the ratio of success/unsuccess has changed. What has recently been a surprising aberration is the number of early withdrawls; a rate in excess of 30% when the prior rate had been ~10%. A number of editors have been working on WP:GRFA, a recently developed guide to the RfA process. One of the hoped for outcomes is a reduction in the number of premature nominations. This may have a desirable effect on the number of early withdrawals.

Thanks for reading. --Durin 05:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As for having a featured article to a nominee's name... I think we should look at it as getting articles to featured status, rather than owing an article. FAC is not a cakewalk, esp to newbies. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, can anyone provide an example of where factionalist voting has altered the result of an RfA? In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman where one might have expected it, I actually saw very little evidence - and result was not affected. Where are folk voting 'oppose - he's not in my gang'? I suspect this is a phantom problem. --Doc (?) 09:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Since this is getting fairly long, can we set up a page to specifically talk about RfA reform? I know, "what do you think this page is for?", but reform is going to take a lot of writing and shouldn't clutter this area up too much. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't see that there is a case for reform, and leaving it here on the talk page for everyone to see helps develop some consensus on whether such is required. By creating a reform page, it's in essence saying that reform is required. Today, I've been going through the archives of this page. Reform is *far* from a new concept. I've worked my way through the archives (oldest to newest) up to March of 2004. This is not a new concept, and there's never been consensus (that I've yet seen) on radical changes to the system. --Durin 17:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is not a new idea, but it is brought up so often that a separate page, or even some sort of RfC, specifically dealing with RfA reform could be formed. Establishing it doesn't mean that reform is required, it would be there that we could determine if it is. It would be an open area to discuss different options and ideas. We establish pages with proposed policy, etc. all the time. This wouldn't really be any different. And my suggestion would simply move the debate for or against reform to a different page than this one. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm just going to repeat myself:> The Rfa system may not be broken, YET, but it is clearly starting to bend under the weight of Wiki's growth. A system, ANY system, is only as good as the people involved. A play may be brilliantly written, but if it has lousy direction and untalented actors it will be an ordeal when performed. One need only watch a typical grade school adaptation of Hamlet to see how bad the results can be. This being said, I do not think any radical measures to change Rfa are needed, yet. But I do advocate some modest reforms, which may or may not work but are at least worth a try.

First- WP:GRFA, alone is simply not enough. It will be no more effective than a small safety sign at a MOSH PIT. I do think it is worthwhile to try, however, provided it is used along with the following two proposals.
Second- A type of candidate "Peer Review" very much like that used in the FAC process, where it has proved highly effective. This would be optional, of course, but highly recommended. It would ne easy to implement and allow issues, personal and otherwise, to be discussed and hopefully worked out before an Rfa. It could help to drastically cut back on the number of ambushes, pile-ons and withdrals. *Third- As a final line of defense, should the first two fail or not be followed, some set of officials to oversee the Rfa to try and ensure the proceedings are kept civil in accordance with the letter and spirit of Wiki guidelines. They would have the power to strike abusive and/or insulting comments, warn those who make them and if they continue, kick them out of the Rfa and nullify their votes. These "Ushers", would be appointed by and answerable to an elected Rfa "Bailiff", who could reinforce their decisions or remove them if they abuse or neglect their duties.

So there you have it...nothing radical (duuude:), these three steps are only modest, incremental measures, which separately would have little effect, but if used together as part of a coherient policy, they might just work. No, they won't make the process perfect, but they can make it less painful...less of an ordeal. I have some Wikipedians and friends I'd like to nominate for admins, because I have full confidence they are worthy and deserving of the title and responsibility. But as the Rfa process now stands, I would not dare risk subjecting them to it. Meanwhile, as I was telling SoLando, I'm growing weary of this debate. It is becoming clear to me that many of the key players here think the system is just snazzy and nothing is wrong at all. It works has always worked and always will work. This is the way of complacency and denial...a path which almost always leads to disaster in the long run. All the moreso in dynamic, fast changing situations. The trouble with trying to reform ANYTHING is the powers-that-be refuse to recognize the problem until it is too late and modest, incremental reform is no longer a viable option. Now that I've said my peace and bored you all to tears, I'm removing myself from this debate. Call me if anything constructive, productive or interesting should come of it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Officials to oversee the RfA process? That's what bureaucrats are for. Also, any user is empowered to comment on the edits of other contributors at RfA. I've taken it upon myself to do so. Anyone concerned with civility at RfA should. As for the RfA system being snazzy and perfectly fine as it is; nobody has identified anything that is clearly wrong with the process itself. Objections have been raised regarding civility, but that is a user specific issue, not a process one. I'm all ears if you have particular objections to the process, but so far nobody has put forther anything specific as to what is wrong with the process. Analogy; you tell your mechanic "My car is running poorly". He asks, "What is it doing wrong?". You have no answer, or the answer is "The people who get into my car are jerks". We need material to work with here. So far, nothing has come forward. You want people to recognize the problem, but don't state what the problem with the RfA process is. This is very difficult. All the moreso because you don't believe incremental reform is possible. This implies tossing the process we have now, without identifying what is wrong with it, in favor of a new process that may or may not address the concerns you have. --Durin 22:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Some proposals. (Archive 39)

. Split adminship into constituant parts.
1. VfD Admins with the power to close VfD's in the main namespace
2. Rollback Admins with the power to rollback
3. Full admins with the power to block users/protect pages.

. Require that candidates undergo a preadminship review similar to the FAC process, 1 month before making an application. Inaddistion candidates ought to repond to all issues brought in the preadminship process.

. Require at least 1000 edits of people going into preadminship review

Klonimus 04:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratic mess. Oppose. Strong Oppose on the 1000 edits criteria. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

ditto. The current system ain't broke, and the proposal would likely make any current minor problems significantly worse. As for preadminship review, this sounds to me like simply doubling the FAC process for no apparent reason. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I will adamantly oppose any recommendations for RfA reform until there is some reasonable listing of what is wrong with RfA right now. As I've said repeatedly before, we can't fix it if we do not know what is wrong with it. So far, the only thing several people seem to be agreeing on is "It's wrong". WHAT is wrong? Can you support your assertions with cites? Can you gain community consensus on the point? Please, stop trying to trash this system if you can not identify what in particular is wrong with it. --Durin 11:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

- Actually, I can suggest a thing that's wrong with Wikipedians on RFA. The #Wikipedia IRC channel is distorting votes in both directions. Everywhere we can, we have a rule that "IRC is not Wikipedia." We disallow it in RFC evidence, for example. We point to its non-status in determining consensus on votes. However, the popularity of the IRC channel is creating an "in" group that is not based upon article edits, vandal fighting, or policy positions. Many of us appear differently in chat than we appear in the articles (certainly I do), and there are plenty of folks who are quite friendly and chatty and engaging in conversation who have done little to nothing on Wikipedia or who have actually done harm. As long as the channel operates and continues to attract users, we will have vote totals that puzzle people who never look at the IRC. People with 200 edits may get tremendous "supports," and people with 4,000 votes may get just a few. People who chat controversially or fight a policy position on IRC may get "oppose" votes despite perfect behavior on the project. It's no good putting big bold letters up at the top saying, "Do not consider IRC behavior when voting," as that will make no difference. Further, "lobbying" for votes can take place in a few minutes on IRC and have more effect than incriminating notes on talk pages. Like I said, not a problem with RFA, but a real problem with Wikipedians not recognizing how little they should heed IRC. Geogre 02:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA reform (Archive 39)

The perennial debate on how to 'improve' requests for adminship has resurfaced again; so I thought I'd invite people to read over and comment on a proposal I drafted back in late June on a radical change to the system, along with a few thoughts on what is broken. It's at User:Talrias/Adminship reform. Some of the comments are outdated now, but I still think the proposal and discussion is relevant and will help us work towards a better procedure if that's what we decide to do. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it IMHO. RfA is fine as it is. Borisblue 16:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Look a couple of sections up and you'll see "some proposals", which are being responded to by several more people saying it ain't broke. There's no need for reform here. No need to re-invent the wheel - the one we've got may not be exactly round, but no wheel is. Grutness...wha? 22:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The adminship process is not broken. I find that mentorship suggestion a new layer of bureaucrasy (no pun intended) which will acomplish nothing. What is needed is more clear procedures for de-adminning. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It would not be a new layer of bureaucracy, as it would replace the existing procedure. In reply to the comment that the process is not "broken", clearly some people think it is given the number of suggestions for alteration of the procedure. I think it would be best to comment on the merits (and flaws) of each proposal rather than disregard any new proposal as a waste of time. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I think rather than new restrictions/guidelines on promoting to admin, we need a clear and well established adminship removal policy/program. ALKIVAR™

23:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the process for de-adminning was clear:

Attempt to calmly and politely resolve concerns with the admin in question on his talk page.
Ask for clarification and comment on WP:AN/I.
File an RFC.
File an RFArb.
ArbCom imposes temporary or permanent sanctions; makes request on m: to remove admins's privileges.

Given that there have been very few cases that have actually led to de-adminning–I'm pretty sure that they can be counted on one hand–I'm not sure why we need a streamlined and efficient de-adminship process. In the one truly urgent case that I can remember, a steward was contacted directly to suspend an admin's powers until the matter could be cleared up.

Making de-adminship easy and efficient is likely to have some unwanted side effects. Instead of pursuing dispute resolution and discussion, there will be a temptation to short-circuit the process and jump directly to a request for de-adminship. The usual assortment of vexatious editors will use a rapid de-adminning process as a threat at best, and a destructive cudgel at worst. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm nervous about a de-admining process. Admins might spend their entire time defending themselves against spurious actions by irrate vandals. On the other hand, there are few ways of keeping admins in check, unless they do somthing really bad. Sloppiness, incivility and at least the impression of abuse and unaccountability often result. And that leaves the question in an RfA - if we make foo an admin, we'd better be 100% sure, as once they're an admin, that's that. So, a de-adminning process has some merits: it might engender a culture of accountability, and increase our willingness to take a chance with some candidates, knowing that if they don't measure up it can be fixed later. Even if no admin were ever de-sysopped, the possibility of review and repremand might do some good. But we would need to have a v.high threshhold for the process to be initiated (e.g. four experienced editors must certify, before the admin even has to answer). --Doc ^ask? 00:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

So, the argument goes "So many people think we need reform, we must therefore need reform"? If you go through the archives of this talk page, you will note that reform has been talked about for at least a year and a half. If it follows that RfA needed to be reformed then because of the negative impact the process was having on Wikipedia (and so many people were asking for it), and the process hasn't changed, then it's reasonable to then conclude Wikipedia must be really bad off now because we've enabled hundreds of admins since then. I'm still not hearing anything substantiative on what is wrong with RfA. I have heard meta arguments built on meta arguments. I have heard incivility as an issue repeatedly raised, but that's an individual issue not a problem with RfA. I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face; before we can identify a solution to the problem we have to first know what the problem is. Else, you're taking shots in the dark and are just as likely to make it worse as make it better. --Durin 02:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the argument does go that way. Does Wikipedia not operate by consensus? In any case, alternate proposals should not be disregarded because people believe "nothing is wrong", they should be considered on their merits. Just because something is not "broken" does not mean there is not a better way of doing it. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I like your Mentorship idea, Talrias, but as an alternative track to the adminship and not as a complete replacement for Rfa. I think a "two track" system would allow more talented editors/contributors to gain promotion without having to submit to an increasingly brusing (un)popularity contest. A two-tier (with full admins and "admins lite"), two track system would be even better. And it would be no more complex than the arbitration process or gaining featured status for an article. Any system is only as good as the people involved. When the positive ones are driven away out of disgust, frustration and harassment, there will only be a cabal of assholes lauding over a mob of dunces. Then we will see how fine their precious Rfa system works. I've seen this happen to many online communities before...BBSes, Usenet groups, Message forums...all much smaller and far less diverse than this one. Please don't think Wiki is immune. I'm at the age where it often sucks to be right.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Another Idea For Reform (Archive 39)

Made up of two measures

All votes must have personal reasoning behind it, or they are discounted(this has gotten better, but it's still a problem). If you stop getting the 4 word votes with little substance, the rfa process will get much better. Of course, it'll be tough to delinate a line between what's "enough" to make the opinion unique enough not to be a mere doppleganger of someone else's opinion, but it's better to have too much than too little.
All admins must go back up for re-nomination every 3 to 9 months. This way, the de-sysopping procedure is more clear, and users know that if an admin is acting poorly or if an admin is tired of being an admin, they don't have that long to wait before being de-sysopped, rather than going through an unclear process. With the re-nomination, the consensus threshold would be much lower, around 60%. If an admin is de-sysoped and wants to become re-sysoped, they just go through the same process as any other candidate with the regular 70-80% standard. Karmafist 22:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- <insert text I said earlier> --Durin 23:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There is some repitition here, but to comment (and broadly disagree with one while agreeing with two):

We have bureaucrats for a reason. I don't think we need a didactic scheme for how they go about deciding if a vote is valid. I don't like support with nothing after it. If I were a b'crat I'd "halve the value" of such votes--but whatever, you become a b'crat to make those judgements as you see fit.
I do agree with re-affirming votes for admins, and I absolutely disagree with the "solution waiting for a problem" bit above. What serious organization allows an entry point to an administrative position and decides "too much work, we'll never re-evaluate"? Ya, sure, the volume increase on this wiki is incredible but this is a very poor reason not to re-evalute admins. It suggests, in fact, that we should we should re-evaluate them regularly. Marskell 23:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

While re-nomination of admins may be a good idea in principle, there are two major concerns I don't think any of its proponents have commented on:

How do we prevent significant numbers of revenge votes, particularly against long-standing and highly visible (especially in the dipute resolution process) admins?
Will the remaining admins be able to compensate for the removal of active, if unpopular, admins, especially if such removals disproportionately affect those involved in page protection or blocking? Kirill Lokshin 23:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your point underscores the respect we ought to have for bureaucrats (and, as an ancillary point, why bureaucrat acceptance should not be over-liberal).

So there is an admin re-confirmation (however organized). Do you think the b'crat is going to hold the votes of obvious vandals, bullshit artists, or vengeful non-named anons equal to cogent votes from established editors? No, obviously--no more than they do on RfA at present.

So, contrary example: an admin faces re-confirmation and a dozen other admins, or named, "good edit" editors come around and say "sorry, no." Perhaps this person should be de-sysopped. Why the hell is it a vote for life? Why shouldn't it be evaluated? Marskell 23:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Marskell is quite right- any worthwhile 'crat would surely see through obvious revenge votes. I'm not sure why people are so afraid of making de-sysoping "easy"- to me it seems sensible for it to be approximately as easy as promoting the admins in the first place. If it's "no big deal", removing privileges from someone who abuses the community's trust should be "no big deal" either. Friday (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Everybody seems bent on making change. I have repeatedly stated that you need to identify weaknesses before making change so as to evaluate whether the changes do what you want to have happen. To continue a car analogy from earlier; sure the Model-T got you from point A to point B. Improvements were made. But, the improvements were not shots in the dark; any engineer who proposed producing a version of the Model T incapable of having tires installed would have been thought insane. Yet, that is essentially what we could be doing here. Everyone's absolutely convinced we need change. Nevermind whether such 'reform' fixes any of the problems we have. So, we now have umpteen proposals for reform of RfA, and not any serious discussion on what's wrong with it. It seems I am one voice lost in the maelstrom. All of you want reform. Consensus seems to be go reform, and my voice is the only one in opposition. Fair enough. Reform it then. But, do not be surprised when a vast majority of the people on RfA get very upset and make calls to returning it to the way it was. Do not be surprised when you layer in all kinds of new bureaucracy and instruction creep and find the process to be suddenly horribly broken. You want a way forward, but refuse to evaluate where you are. You're at point <unknown> and want to get to point B; a better place for RfA. There is no map in the world that will tell you how to get to point B if you don't know where you are. --Durin 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Durin, you do indeed seem to be the one voice for a reasoned approach: 1) Determine what's wrong and then 2) How do we fix the wrong. There may be others like myself who agree with you but can't come up with any better arguments than you yourself so ably present. --hydnjo talk 04:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, let's just boil down what we do at WP:RFA. We try and select editors that can be trusted with a few extra tools in as civil a manner as possible. On the first count we do pretty good. I think you can count the admins that have been de-admined on one hand. There are, outside of a few high-profile cases, vey few admins are identified as editors that shouldn't have been selected. There are, sometimes, problems with the civility part. The one improvement needed is to inforce WP:CIV and WP:DICK to a greater degree, when needed. Most nominations go off without a hitch, the problematic ones need to be policed a little better. Preferably by the nominee and the nominator...and perhaps bureaucrats. I don't think that any major overhauls are needed, the problems we have here would just reappear there somehow anyway...$0.02 Rx StrangeLove 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Idea 1 is arguable, but I don't think it is necessary. It is a bureaucrat who makes a judgement call, he/she should be smart enough to read carefully the comments, see what to take into condideration, etc.

Idea 2, about each admin standing for reelection every 3 to 9 months is one of the pointless rules I ever ran into. 500 or more admins standing for reelection every 9 months? It would take much, much, less effort to just deal with the occasional rogue admin than to have bureucrats promote and repromote people ad-nauseum. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want my idea about what's wrong with RfA, it's that it's too much like an election. This turns RfA into a popularity contest, where people who are Popular and Well-Known get elected even if there are serious concerns about their qualifications or temperament. Of course, a candidate about whom serious concerns are voiced by an Influential Person will usually end up failing as people who don't want to appear to be Out Of Sync with the Influental Person pile on oppositions. Basically, there's too much influence politics going on and too little discussion of actual merit. Tony's suggestion (wherever the hell it is) has a lot of merit; it basically turns the bureaucrats into a Adminship Committee and turns RfA into a forum where people are recommended for adminship based on merit, and the bureaucrats decide whether or not the merit is actually there or not. (I really should run for bureaucrat....)

I absolutely agree that any sort of periodic confirmation on en is out of the question; we'd have to start two confirmations a day just to do annual confirmations, and that's not even allowing for growth. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That suggestion would mean that there would need to be an increase in the number of bureaucrats, since they're given the burden similar in size to WP:RFAr. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel there's anything particularly wrong with the present system. I don't mind if someone wants to educate me on the problems of it, but it seems to work fine to me, as far as I can tell. There is a problem with pettiness in some votes, I think. There was one clear recent case that comes to mind. But overall I think the basic procedure is fine. The one priority change I think ought to be made is the ability to hold desysopping votes for admins who have clearly acted outside of policy (I would think habitually, not a one-time mistake). In these cases I think these admins should only have to get a majority of the vote, or perhaps 60%, rather than 75% or thereabouts. We don't want admins acting contrary to policy, but at the same time we don't need to risk losing a bunch of good ones. Everyking 07:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the discussions carefully. Right now, I am unable to comment on all points. Basically, I do agree that “adminship’ is not a “life-long” affair. However, the matter requires examination from all possible angles. Once, the community has reposed trust, unless apparent deficiency in the conduct is noticed, process of re-nomination/re-selection, etc. is perhaps not warranted. If the current system gives “birth” to some “unusual” administrators, requiring “reforms” in this area, any changed system may also not be free of all flaws. However, the issue is a pertinent one, and requires exhaustive discussions. --Bhadani 14:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My Views On The Responses

Thanks for the input. Marskell brings up a good point, and perhaps Bureaucrat vote counts can be documented in some way or standarized methodology that would half the votes of non-documented votes since Wikipedia is Not a Democracy, your vote is definately not as important as the reasoning behind it.

As for the second idea, to be honest, it was as much for the issue of admin burnout as it would be for the issue of admin misconduct. As the recent "anti-rfa" of Silsor can attest, de-sysopping can often be an unpleasant process, whether it's here or on Meta. For any admins who felt they were unable to do their job for a certain period, this would give them an excuse to leave their post and then come back once they're refreshed. Putting a Wiki-Vacation on yourself can often be like quitting smoking, this place is addictive.

I don't particularly understand the overload issue though, we already need more Bureaucrats as it is, whether something changes or not. This would just make that need much more obvious.

I definately agree that there are areas of Wikipedia in need of fixing far sooner than Rfa, but instances such as Tony1 and Bushytails have shown me that the system is still flawed and needs to be refined. Karmafist 16:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not technical. The problem is social. I don't know anything about the Tony1 case, but in the Bushytails case, the issue was people opposing because they disagreed with his views on what's appropriate for the main page. That's not a technical problem, and it doesn't have a technical solution. It's people being dicks. ~~ N (t/c) 19:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Two Proposals (Archive 39)

I would support a 2 days of prevoting Discussion and then 7 days of voting. This would be achived by having nominations first be placed in a discussion section and then for voting to commence. Because of the Importance of Adminship I favor a more deliberative process. I also feel that shorter voting periods make campagigning much easier and more effective.
A chi-square test for early closure. After two days of voting, an RfA may be suspended if (|Support - Oppose| - 1)^2/(Support+Oppose) <= 3.84 (Chi^2 @ p= 0.05 df=1). This would suggest that there is not a signifigantly greater amount of support votes than oppose votes and that the RfA will likely fail. This would be a simple and objective test for deciding to end RfA's prematurely. Klonimus 06:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeesh... mega-instruction creep on both counts. →Raul654 06:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain how not permitting people to vote for the first two days is "mega" instruction creep? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think he meant the chi-square test. Plus, 7 days of discussion is far better than 2 and 7 of voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemoose (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 November 2005

He said "both counts", which I took to mean both of Klonimus' proposals. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Raul654, this sounds like crinstruction eep. — JIP | Talk 11:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, instruction creep is used as a kind of sneering shorthand for "don't upset the applecart". The reality is that RfA has become a kind of beauty contest, and the process is becoming debased as a result. The main danger as far as the project is concerned is that unqualified people get promoted and good candidates get shot down because a few vocal voters don't like them More importantly, real people are getting their feelings hurt; and yes, that is more important. So, I tend to agree with the overall tenor of Klonimis' proposals, but not the detail. There should be a discussion period of, say, 5 days to enable people who are not here every day to participate. If the discussion shows clear consensus for admining, there is no need for a vote at all. Ditto if there is a clear consensus against. In grey-area cases, a further 5 days for voting should suffice. Any campaigning over and above a simple message on the candidate's own user and talk pages (e.g. messages on other talk pages, mails to the various lists, etc.) should disqualify the candidate forthwith. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me when the danger becomes a reality? If RFA hurt your fellings what are you going to do when the threats of physical harm come in?Geni 13:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the threats come from jerks, while the abuse on RfA comes from those you thought of as peers. It's different. All too often, the a large part of the "electorate" proves itself incapable of even basicly reasoned argument, resorting to abuse as the first recourse. IMHO the danger has already become a reality, but I am not about to name name as to those recently made admins who I believe were not qualified; I may well be wrong.

But all of this is to neglect the more general point; as with any decision we make here, an RfA should be handled via rational discussion and consensus building. Currently, it's just a popularity contest, with frequent examples of bandwagon jumping, kicking people when they are down, etc. To justify this be saying that successful candidates have to be able to take qratuitous abuse is no argument at all. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

abuse from "peers". Check. Dealing with people aparently incapable of even basicly reasoned argument (and not addmitting that you think this), resorting to abuse as the first recourse. Check. .Dealing with bandwagon jumping, kicking people when they are down, etc (also know as wikipolitics). Check.

Real problems with admins are pretty rare. I can only think of two remotely recent cases whee adminship had to be removed (depending on arcom it may shortly be three). With 600 odd admins (and about 200 truely active) that is pretty good going.Geni 15:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to second "instruction creep is...shorthand for 'don't upset the applecart.'" And I'd add two points:

Editicountitis has become shorthand for dismissing any quantitative analysis of edits whatsoever. Support without comment? Hey, no problem. But suggest more time/more edits/more wiki contribs and you're being too picky.
"Do you realize how fast this Wiki is growing/how much work that would be?!?" has become the base argument to dismiss RfA changes the moment they're suggested.

Discussion for four days, vote for three (with extension in the absence of, say, two dozen votes). Thus contrib or POV criticisms can be raised as a talking point rather than a vote. Marskell 14:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For an example of how editcountitis can be abused, look at Durin's analysis of my use of edit summaries in my current RfB. He found a statistic that serves his point (64% use of edit summaries in the past 500 edits). Gmaxwell found another one that doesn't: 98.96% use of edit summaries in main article edits since my adminship (excluding uses of one-click rollback). Statistics can readily be misused to prove any point you want, and people tend to misuse them. I would argue that the use of "quantitative measurements" to evaluate administrator (and bureaucrat) candidates is a sterling example of how statistical information can be misused to any particular purpose. Relying on statistics as a substitute for doing a proper analysis of the qualifications of a candidate is extremely dangerous, especially when you don't know how to interpret statistics. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my statement regarding your use of edit summaries being 64% of the time in the past 500 edits. According to [1] and [2], you feel it is important to use edit summaries. My analysis of your edit summary usage was spot on. That you later qualified your use of edit summaries to mean that you only use them all the time when you're not doing ArbCom related work is a follow on qualifier of your personal policy in this regard. As for not knowing how to interpret statistics, the bare facts are what they are; you made assertions that people should use edit summaries all the time. Your own use of edit summaries over the last 500 edits was 64%. To later qualify that usage does not undermine the assertion. The determination of your edit usage was not made in bad faith to the particular purpose of undermining your RfB. It was used as supporting evidence of why I voted oppose to your RfB. I did not rely on that statistic alone to evaluate you; indeed I spent more than two hours evaluating you and your edits, as my 22 citations of your contributions shows.
Kelly, I spent those hours trying to fairly evaluate you. What I found was disturbing enough for me to have voted oppose if this were an RfA as opposed to an RfB. On incivility alone there was basis to oppose an RfA. As noted, I cited [3] as evidence of incivility. On a recent RfA that was going 36-0, I found evidence of incivility [4]. The tenor of your edit is a bit better than that of NickBush's, but an RfB goes to a higher standard. Treating an editor on Wikipedia like a child (even if supposedly deserved) is undermining to respect of Arbcom and harmful to Wikipedia. You can and should be more professional than that. NickBush's RfA collapsed after I found his incivil cite, going from 36-0 to 45-23. CDThieme, Radiant and Aaron all noted incivility on your part before I made my vote. I do not see you protesting their votes. Indeed, I could make a case that it is you...not I...that is being motivated to look at my vote in the RfB through dispute goggles (as one contributor put it).
On a related note, I find it interesting that if a person does little evaluation of a candidate and votes oppose, they are sometimes roundly criticized. I do a several hour evaluation of a candidate and I get criticized. The lesson? Just vote oppose without any comment; if you're going to get criticized no matter what you do, save yourself some time. Sigh. --Durin 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have written an extensive reply to Durin's criticisms; it is in my user space at User:Kelly Martin/Response to Durin. I personally believe that Durin was doing what many people do in such situations: they decide how they want the case to come out, and find "objective" reasons to justify that decision. I believe an objective evaluation of Durin's criticisms indicate that they vary from overly nitpicky to outright silly, but that's just my opinion. It is true that I consider Durin a "problem admin" at this point (due to his attempt to intefere with an editor from availing himself of the mediation process, a grave offense against the dispute resolution process, and an offense he does not even acknowledge to have been inappropriate), and I assume Durin continues to take offense with me for attempting to hold him accountable for his actions (his previous conversations on this topic indicate that he intends to hold me in contempt until such time as I abjectly admit that his actions were totally appropriate and apologize for having the temerity to question him about them).
The editors opposing me on my RfB are doing so for one of three reasons: they don't believe that we need more bureaucrats; they do not think that an arbitrator should also be a bureaucrat; or they do not like me personally. The first two arguments I can understand, and if my RfB fails for either of those reasons I will be disappointed but not upset. The third group of voters, however, irritate me. I am unpopular with these voters because I have expressed concern from time to time about the appropriateness of their conduct as administrators, or because they are the friend of an administrator whose conduct I have questioned. (Of course, the offense at having their conduct questioned is usually phrased as a "civility concern", so as to switch the focus away from their own conduct and onto someone else's. This is quite common, almost universal; such accusations are made even when there is no basis for them.) So, because I take an interest in policing administrative conduct, I am punished for it (and at the same time, accused of not taking a serious enough concern for administrative misconduct). If you want an answer why nobody polices administrative conduct on Wikipedia, this is it: if you do, you will be pariahed for it. It's like being in the internal affairs division of a police department: nobody will talk to you and you become grossly unpopular. Great job, Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly above you state "Durin was [deciding how he wanted] the case to come out, and found "objective" reasons to justify that decision". You are ignoring WP:AGF. You did so in some of the cites I noted. You did so in your behavior with respect to me. You go on to call me "overly nitpicky" and "outright silly". You are taking my vote personally, and attempting to strangle it into a condemnation of me. If you consider me to be a problem admin, then I strongly...let me restate that...VERY STRONGLY encourage you to inititiate an RfC. I stand by my actions, I stand by my explanation of them, and User:NicholasTurnbull who oversees WP:TINMC gave an abject apology for his conclusions which were very similar to your conclusions. I do not question your right to question my acts. What I do question is your absolute insistence to ignore WP:AGF and assume malicious acts on my part when it is blatantly obvious that the contrary is true, as User:NicholasTurnbull attests to. I acted in absolute good faith to help a user who was being ignored by every mediation process he was attempting to find answers from. I considered this matter closed when you did not respond to my last reply on this subject on October 28, 11 days ago. Obviously this is still bothering you and you insist on dragging this out. This isn't the forum for it. Either you stop now, or file an RfC to bring closure to it through more appropriate forums. This continued assault on my character is demeaning to you, to me, and to Wikipedia. Continuing to insist I am a "problem admin" without bringing this matter to official channels is ~~just slanderous~~ wrong. It's beneath you. So why do it? File the RfC, or drop it.
You cite three reasons why people are opposing your RfB. You are including evidence of incivility as people not liking you. You are "irritated" because people find your incivility unacceptable. It isn't about liking you Kelly. It's about not liking how you treat other people. There is a difference. For what it's worth, I respect your contributions to Wikipedia. I do not know if I like you or not; it's really subjective and hard to surmise from some characters on a screen. What I do not like is your incivility and attitude of "do as I say, not as I do". Nobody is attempting to switch focus off of one person's civility and on to your incivility and unjustly accuse you of incivility. There is no justification for being incivil to people as you have been. Your record stands by itself, in the open, for everyone to read. That you do not like what has been found in your record does not change that record. You are not being taken to task for criticizing administrator behavior. You are being taken to task for your manner in dealing with other users. For my vote, I felt I had ample evidence for that with your no warning blocks, banning of an IP out of policy, lack of adherence for policy in some cases, and treatment of users. My vote was not in bad faith. I appreciate the subpage that you created to answer my review. I do not appreciate that it was labelled as "allegations". This just further goes to show an assumption on your part of bad faith by me. Your subpage was a great response to "shoot the message". Much of the comments you have made outside of that with regards to me and the RfB has been "shooting the messenger". This is anti-wikipedia philosophy. --Durin 18:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Policeing administrative conduct leads to pariah status? It is still probably the case that I've blocked more admins than anyone else. This isn't the thing that I recive the most hastle for.Geni 18:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For those that are interested, Kelly has now filed an RfC against me at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin. --Durin 14:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree that these proposals are instruction creep. I also have no problem with adminship nominations as a popularity contest. Again, the ultimate decision is done by a bureaucrat by reading carefully all the votes and comments and who should be able to weed out popular people who would also make good admins from popular people who may not. And I fail to see how these two proposals would make a bureaucrat's job easier/more objective. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Having a non-voting discussion period is workable, and it's been a welcome introduction at WP:FPC. The chi-squared test, no thanks. Enochlau 08:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal on minimum positive votes (Archive 44)

I would like to gauge sentiment on having a minimum number of "support" votes for adminship. So as to be fair, we would give those with less than the desired number another 48 hours with a notice for Wikipedians to consier the candidacy. My proposal is:

At the time of the closing of a nomination, in addition to other considerations, candidates must have accumulated at least xx "Support" votes. If he/she has not, the nomination will be automatically extended for at least 48 hours with a notice informing those checking RfA to give the candidacy scrutiny in order to demonstrate consensus.

Proposed by Cecropia 18:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No change in current procedures

No change - a minimum could cause a perfectly good candidate's request to fail. The current system vets all applications thoroughly enough. If there are any closet skeletons, they are always brought to light and scrutinised. IMO it is impossible to prevent "inappropriate" candidates being promoted and we shouldn't change the system based on two isolated examples. I know some good admins who were promoted despite low turnouts and controversies. Izehar 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If a nominee is unsuitable, simply oppose his/her promotion. If he/she hasn't received many "support" votes, it won't take many "oppose" votes to kill his/her chances. The proposed system would merely give candidates with lots of friends on Wikipedia a bigger advantage than they already have. —David Levy 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Voting... Hmmm... Well, there are plenty of not-so-great admins with more than xx number of votes, so this doesn't seem like a great idea. Voting comes in waves depending on the time of year, so someone nominated might get the shaft just because, say, college kids have gone home for the week, or around these holidays where people won't be wikiing. In the past 2 weeks, User:Croat Canuck, User:EdwinHJ, User:Deltabeignet, User:BorgHunter, User:Joe Beaudoin Jr., User:Rschen7754, and User:Syrthiss were all sysopped with less than 25 support votes. Does this automatically mean that they are not suitable? If someone has 24 votes, they are deemed unworthy of adminship? Silly. Things are fine for now. We will always have bad apples slip through now and again, but imposing this just disallows good apples from getting through. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
And really, aren't the top two options the same? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking, unless option #2 involves imposing a strict set of guidelines that the bureaucrats must follow. They aren't computers, so I prefer to trust their common sense. —David Levy 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Option #2 indicates a per-case basis, which I take to mean no strict set of guidelines - but I strongly support making it clear that bureaucrats can use their judgment in this respect. bd2412 T 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And that's what I meant when asked the question in the comments section below. It is about the per-case basis. Would they be ready for that? Anyway, I trust they can. Cheers -- Szvest 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}
Though I see no difference between this position and the next; bureaucrats are already empowered to determine if consensus is achieved. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite a few extremely capable admins, and hopefully I can include myself amongst them, failed to achieve 25 or 30 support votes. It is also worth pointing out that RFA is not a straight election (and therefore 19 well formulated comments are far more useful than several hundred votes offering little or no substantiation). Beyond this, I feel the the bureaucrats are doing a good job at determining consensus at the moment. Rje 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no difference between this option and the one below, but oh well. In all, let the bureaucrat decide. New rules would be tying the hands of bureaucrats and thus not make it easier for bureaucrats to decide who whould make a good administrator and who would not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
These proposals are a solution looking for a problem. All this discussion is because of 2...just 2 supposed problem admins who failed to achieve 30 support votes in their RfAs. Do we have any evidence...ANY.....evidence that more than xx votes means they're a good admin? I'll answer for you; NO. Reason? There's no feedback mechanism on admin performance. What about the other 22 successful RfAs in the last 30 days who had less than 30 votes? Should we presume they're flawed, and restart them? Should we presume that 90% of the 24 are all bad because just 10% are supposedly problem admins? How come nothing (at least that I know of) has been done to correct the behavior of the...2...problem admins and why instead are we attempting to cause major change to RfA as "corrective" action? This is, frankly, absurd. --Durin 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe this is likely to cause a qualitative improvement in the admin pool, and consequently constitutes an unnecessary and inflexible rule. The only thing I think is likely to lead to safer adminship votes is if people vote "promote" for people with whom they've had significant personal interation, and there's practical means for that to be enforced by policy or technical means. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see that a quorum would help. ~~Like many, I'm confused about the difference between this and the next option.~~ (struck out after Cecropia's explanation below) Finally, I echo Durin that any issues should first and foremost be taken up with the admin. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
No change needed, I agree with Durin above. Grue 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
No changes. If the community is too lax in granting admin powers, so be it. There is no need for arbitrary standards on vote counts. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
No changes. In my opinion, every reliable editor should have admin power, just as soon as possible. Given the nature of what we are trying to do with Wikipedia, soon is good. This requires that we determine that they are reliable. This is a very difficult task, but to put up these kinds of barriers doesn't help in this determination in my view. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No changes. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Leave it be. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Now that I have over 30 votes in favor of my candidacy (which closes in a few hours), I feel comfortable in joining this discussion. All I want to add to everything that has already been said, is that consensus often relies on people being quiet. Formal consensus decision making (in which I have a little training) says that "silence equals consent". It is the responsibility to speak up when you disagree. It is helpful to be quiet when you agree. You can see this in practice at CfD. Often a category is listed and there is only one or two votes in agreement. Why? It is because there is obvious consent. There is no need for everyone to spend the time saying "ditto, I agree". If there is obvious support to a candidate, and there is no dissent, why does it matter if there is 10, 50, or 100 votes? I could imagine making the period of nomination longer during holiday times, but even this week, I have not seen evidence that there was wasn't enough time for trusted members of the community to vote. I think many people watch the votes without deciding to vote. They look to see if things are going well, and only put the time in to respond if they think their vote is necessary. This is an efficient way to do things, and part of the consensus decision making process. -- Samuel Wantman 07:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I support the current situation. I am concerned about the campaigning issue to achieve the minimal standard of votes. A simple concensus as it currently is should be the only grounds needed to be promoted. There are few nominations with much less than 20 votes and I am not convinced that someone having 30 support votes will ultimately be a better admin than someone with less than that. I remember recently asking people to look over a particular candidates edit history and cast a vote one way or the other because so few people had bothered to look at the nomination, and I placed the comments on the nominees nomination page. Popularity shouldn't be the criteria for adminship.--MONGO 08:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If it ain't broke... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I support the current situation 'which seems to be the same as option 2. Because a consensus is subjective we must leave the issue to the subjective opinion of the burecrat. --Chazz88 14:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No change required. --Ngb^?!? 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No changes needed. The growing number of participants on the site might make any limits we set now trivial in the future. Further, limits might be biased against editors who don't spread their work over many areas. As some other editors have expressed here, I also would prefer good discussion rather than simple votes without reasons. --Idont Havaname 03:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
We are losing enough good candidates to the Rfa process as it stands. Requiring minimal support will only make it more of a popularity/beauty contest than it is already.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No change, i.e. the same as option 2. (Bizarre poll... generally, poll options should be different!) Dan100 (Talk) 10:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I prefer keeping the system as simple as possible. Sarge Baldy 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
No change, this would only lead to more wiki-clique and wiki-politics behaviour here (as if there wasn't already enough). I have seen excellent users with almost no support votes, and other users who just a while ago were pow-warring and edit-warring with a lot of support votes. This would be just an unnecessary rule that probably wouldn't help anything. But I support a "no criminal record" rule (see below). The problem is not so much the high number of support votes, but rather the lack of oppose votes in RFA's. --Kefalonia 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No change. As noted, this is almost the same as option 2; bureaucrats are trusted to make decisions and it should be left to their discretion. enochlau (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I oppose arbitrary limits. If a candidate is unsuitable, he won't become an admin. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
JoaoRicardo^talk 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Allow bureaucrats to judge whether support numbers are sufficient on a per-case basis

I'm not convinced the system needs fixing or that Slim's proosal will solve anything.Gator (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Bureaucrats have in the past posted notices inviting more people to take a look a nominations which had not gotten much attention, sometimes extending the time on them as well. But if a nomination has only a handful of votes, I think the latitude they are given includes making a judgment on whether that is sufficient. Jonathunder 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Trust the bureaucrats, that's what we have them for! bd2412 T 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As per BDA. This is exactly what I thought. Szvest 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}
Let the 'Crats know that the community likes to see a certain number of votes (as per the discussion above) and recommend that they should take that into account when closing, but leave the actual decision up to them. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If the "community likes to see a certain number of votes," the community needs to vote. What sense does it make to sit around twiddling one's thumbs for a week, followed by a complaint that there were too few votes? Just vote! —David Levy 19:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
After reading Cecropia's comment [5] on this choice, I believe this is the best option. Carbonite | Talk 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I support the Cecropian solution.-gadfium 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Same here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
After a Request for ~~Roasting~~Bureaucratship, I trust that they have the common sense to determine whether there is sufficient support. It's their job, after all. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This option would seem to be the same as the status quo option. — Dan | talk 07:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Bureaucrats can currently keep an RFA open for longer if there's ambiguity as to whether there's a consensus or not so that more opinions can be gotten so this would only codify it which I support even though it may be rules and regs creep. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I like this idea, but I'd like hear a bureaucrat comment on it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable, and I think that any strict numerical limit would be instruction creepish. In the rare case where an admin nom gets very few votes, it might otherwise get people to oppose because there isn't sufficient support, which seems kind of silly. R adiant _>|< 11:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It's best to explicitly state this so failed candidates can't argue that they were unfairly treated. --D e ath phoenix 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
THe easiest, simplest, and most flexible. We entrust the bureaucrats to make sound judgment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Not my first preference, but better than no change at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Definitely, yes. I think it makes sense to avoid instruction creep and entrust bureaucrats to use their judgement -- Ferkelparade π 10:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Better than nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This choice seems best to me, combined with a general rule-of-thumb minimum (25-30 for example), but the bureaucrat is still free to use discernment. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Best blend of concerns. Youngamerican 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I trust my judgement ;-P Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
A little surprised this wasn't the case already. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
the wub "?!" 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I would say, given our normal prediliction for common sense, that this was current practice anyway; but never mind... James F. (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
There should be enough interest in a nomination to determine actual consensus, but I don't feel that an arbitrary floor is going to accomplish much. Bureaucrats have done a decent job so far making judgment calls in tricky situations, and that, is after all, one of their responsibilities. – Seancdaug 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Require at least 20 support votes

Require at least 25 support votes

25 votes are a good start, and most canditates could get that easily. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Many succesful candidates don't
Sounds good to me, though I think bureaucrats should have the authority to suspend a nomination if they have issues with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
--Improv 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, not my first preference, but close enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Good start. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine as a general-rule-of-thumb minimum that a bureaucrat is still free to overrule. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Require at least 30 support votes

This is my first preference. Someone who has interacted well with the community for several months should be able to muster at least 30 votes in the current climate of high turnout for these nominations. If they can't, I'd say there might be a problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The average # of votes per RfA over the last 7 months has remain essentially unchanged. There's only been a very marginal increase. --Durin 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a change over the last year, and going back to look at nominations six months prior to that, an even bigger one. I'd say someone who can't muster 30 votes now could use some further interaction before being promoted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have eny evidence which shows that RfAs with less than 30 support votes over the last month resulted in admins that have behaved badly? --Durin 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Even better. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine as a general-rule-of-thumb minimum that a bureaucrat is still free to overrule. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Other

No self-noms

Keep procedure the same, except for no self noms.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC) I see the issues, I have even voiced ideas on changing the procedure. Every proposed change brings with it cons which IMHO outweigh the pros, with the exception of no self noms, which while it may not help as much as other proposals, also will not hurt. If someone cannot dredge up anyone who considers them worthy of nomination, they are highly unlikely to make it through the procedure.
Boo! I think that's a bad idea - higher standards for self-noms... maybe. But, IMO we shouldn't exclude the possibility. Many of our excellent admins were promoted after self-noms. Izehar 20:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
But surely those could have found a nominator? I'm thinking of reducing clutter of people who could not be realistically expected to be admined. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Izehar with that, Curps, Journalist and many other good admins were promoted by self-noms and several bad admins didn't had a self-nom in their RFA's. Higher standards maybe ok but I don't see how this no self-nom idea is a soulution. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Izehar. Although it is embarassing for the poor-qualified self-nom, with the proper amount of explanation, a user can be motivated to become a better and more-experienced Wikipedian. Just because some people don't read any of the information at the top of the RfA page doesn't mean we should get rid of self-nominations. I've seen several users get nominated well beyond 15,000 good edits with active participation in project spaces, and they could have been doing a lot more good if they had nominated themselves earlier. Now let's try to apply that story to what I was talking about :-). JHMM13 (T | C) 14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Most pile-on failed nominations are self-noms, so at least that would cut out the really unsuitable candidates. All good candidates can (or should be able to) get a nominator, there's thousands of active users here. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Typically, if the nominator is a trusted wikipedian, I would tend to vote "Support" with just a cursory glance at the contribs of the nominee. However, sometimes I keep wondering what if the nominator missed something from the nominee's record? However, in a self-nom, lot of editors go through the contribs and the possibility of adminning a wrong candidate is reduced drastically. Hence, I believe strongly that self-noms should be allowed. --Gurubrahma 10:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As a successful self nom myself, I could have found a nominator, but I didn't want to: why get someone else to do something I can do myslef? And more per Guru, self-noms generally undergo more scrutiny; far too often people vote by nominator rather than by who is being nominated, so anything that can garner deeper investigation is a good thing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Keep self nominations. Users should be allowed to nominate themselves rather than ask another user. This rule is for bureaucrats, and besides their is no linit to how many nominations you can attempt. -- Eddie 04:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What rule is for bureaucrats? NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There have been a lot more quick-fail noms since self-noms and noms by others were mixed together a few months back. Although it's laudable that people should want to become admins, a prerequisite for many voters is an ability to engage with the community. If a user does that enough, it'll soon become obvious to someone that they should be nominated (especially given things like the list of non-admins with most edits). I don't see removing self-nomination as being a significant hurdle to people becoming admins. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm voting yes to no self-nominations (but not to no changes otherwise). If someone has interacted well with the community, they'll be nominated soon enough.
No self-noms. If you can't find a single person to nominate you, then you'd benefit from more interaction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have seen more self-noms fail more than nominated candidates. A self-nom is red flag that the user does not interact at a sufficient level for the community to make an informed decision. It also would stop noms that are bound to fail as in this example[6] showing that the candidate may not have even understood the process.--Dakota ~ ε 19:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose requiring non self-noms (ie allow self-noms)

Come on, forbidding self-noms will fix what? Yet another rule, and with no gain. The way to deal with bad admins is (1) visit RfA often, study carefully people's candidacies, oppose if something does not look right (Radiant! is doing a good job at that). (2) Be tolerant to new admins, point gently to their mistakes and guide them if necessary (if some old hands do a bad job, talk to them also). (3) Report abuse at WP:AN/I or/and start RfC/RfArb if necessary. Really, inventing new rules is not the way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This entire vote is ridiculous - there was no category for voting against the choice until Oleg Alexandrov created one just now, so the I thought the above was intended to be a discussion, not a vote... which others may have thought also, thus declining to vote otherwise. Start over. bd2412 T 03:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone goes around looking for people to promote; expecting all potential admins to have someone nominate them is silly. Besides: such a rule will only lead to adminship clubs that nominate each other (if the CVU isn't such already). jnothman ^talk 03:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Per my comment above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per jnothman. enochlau (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Concur, as an other-nommed administrator. ~~ N (t/c) 04:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC). Of course.
We, as a community, do a perfectly fine job of sorting out crap-tastic self noms. Youngamerican 16:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. --Durin 17:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Strongly. the wub "?!" 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Not all self-noms are bad. -- §Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I would oppose not allowing self-nominations. There are people out there who are interested in being an admin and doing good work, but in possibly low visibility areas. Should they have to go ask someone to nominate them just because they're interested in the job? Sue Anne 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Only allow self-noms

OK, I know this isn't going to get much support. But it kind of disturbs me to see people who apparently spend their time hunting for nominees, trying to build up a big list of successful nominated admins. Also, I like to see what self-noms have to say about themselves in the nominating statements. (This second part could of course be taken care of by having nominees enter an acceptance statement, rather that just saying "I accept", so it's a minor point.)

At least 1 vote

David Remahl 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that goes without saying. The bureaucrat would probably let the RfA run until someone actually voted. Izehar 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
David Levy 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this already a rule. This soulds like common sense to me. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It's an attempt at Wikihumor. -- Cecropia 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Any joke that must be explained either proves poor humor in the teller or the audience...usually both. ;-) JHMM13 (T | C) 14:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose! bd2412 T 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Create an RfA-like process through which the community can de-sysop bad admins.

Comment: This proposal/suggestion already exists. Anyone interested should check out Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. --D e ath phoenix 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If the community can be trusted to promote a user to sysop, I see no reason why it can't be trusted to determine when a demotion is necessary. —David Levy 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I can easily see this a blackmail tool e.g., "if you keep on editing this article I will start a deadmin process against you!". I would think that the current mechanism of request for comment and request for arbitration would work better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Any de-sysop process would gauge the community's will. Just as a single disgruntled editor (or a handful of disgruntled editors) is unable to stop an RfA from succeeding, only a clear-cut consensus would actually result in a demotion. If, for example, 4/5 of the community were to advocate de-sysopping a user (for valid reasons, of course, as this wouldn't be a simple vote count), wouldn't that be sufficient? —David Levy 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Nah, too much potential for abuse. The only reasonable way of doing would be for a bureaucrat and bureaucrat only to nominate an admin for being desysopped (say after reviewing some evidence, something like an ArbCom fast track), but I would not probably support even that (abuse is not that often, and so far the ArbCom did a good job, the cases of Stevertigo and Ed Poor is what I remember). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I would support a setup in which the process may be initiated only by a bureaucrat or via an ArbCom ruling (based upon specific, pre-determined criteria). The final decision, however, would rest with the community. —David Levy 06:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless things have changed since my brief stint on the AC, this proposal is already at least partially in place, David. As I recall, at least one editor has been dealt with in this manner by the ArbCom...either we sent them here for a vote to see if the community wanted them desysopped, or else we removed sysop rights and then immediately sent them here as a nominee to see if the community disagreed and wanted them to remain an admin. I don't know if this is the best possible system, but having been on the unpleasant end of a troll or two, I'd rather not make desysopping too easy a process to initiate. Even if the vast majority supported me, the few unpleasant comments would really sour in my mind (and lead to Wikibreaks). Empowering anyone other than the ArbCom (say, a bureaucrat) significantly alters the power structure....the number of active b-crats, for example, is very small, and I don't know that we should add to their stress this responsibility. Jwrosenzweig 07:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. This has the advantage of bringing in bureaucrats to interpret the results and perform the action if neccessary, so those that want ArbCom and/or B'crat involvement should be satisfied. The ArbCom has shown their willingness to de-sysop in a couple recent cases, so they're already doing their part. Friday (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Good Idea, only thing is to decide who can actually nominate. -- Eddie 04:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting idea at face value, but I think there would need to be a massive consensus to get rid of a user...and only admins can vote. If that is the case, then 99% of the voters are respected members of the community who can be trusted to read into the issue at hand. I reccomend something like a 85-90% consensus and a trial run. I don't really believe blackmail will be an issue, because users who use that as blackmail will lose all credibility, and the user getting blackmailed will easily overturn the nomination for de-adminship, earning himself some pseudo-martyr points with the community. I think we should try this proposal out with a high consensus percentage. JHMM13 (T | C) 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I think the current system of ArbCom and RfA are sufficient. Issues to do with administrator abuse are quite complicated, and only a proper examination of all the relevant (often copious) material is sufficient. Having an easy de-admin process has the potential to lend itself to abuse. enochlau (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support, this would encourage some admins to actually act like admins. It could for example be proposed that every admin has to through such a process all 1-2 years at the minimum, and all 6 months at the maximum. --Kefalonia 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Been there, tried that, still have the scars. Such processes have been tried before, and it has been observed that they have the tendency to blow up in your face. Have fun! :-) Kim Bruning 23:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

In case anyone wonders, I am expressing no opinion, but do want to know how the community feels. -- Cecropia 18:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Would bureaucrats be ready for this new task in case it is decided that they will have to judge on a per-case basis? Cheers -- Szvest 18:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Don't they have to anyway? I thought a bureaucrat's decision in an RfA is akin to an administrator's in an AfD. Izehar 18:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ha! It is to laugh. All bureaucrats receive special training in secret CIA facilities in unnamed eastern European countries! ... Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that. Never mind. -- Cecropia 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh man that was fun though. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any difference between first two options?

I would like to get enlightned, what is the difference between "no change in the rules" and "allow bureaucrats to judge if number of votes is sufficient"? As voiced already above, both of those reflect how things are now. The bureaucrat has wide lattitude to promote/not promote/extend the voting period based on individual circumstances. How about mergin the two options? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.Gator (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that in option 1, a bureaucrat has to promote whoever has achieved a consensus, whereas in potion 2, a bureaucrat can choose not to. Izehar 19:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but a consensus is left up to be determined by the BCrat, so how is there a difference? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes - example: in the current system the bureaucrat would have to promote BD2412, whereas if option 2 were used, the bureaucrat could choose not to. Izehar 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That, my friend, is a baaad example. bd2412 T 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may be a bad example, but it is also a wrong example. It is up to the closing BCrat to determine consensus. It is not just about the number of votes people get. But, like I said, that is a bad example. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it a bad example? Could that result ever be called a "no consensus" or a "consensus against promoting"? Izehar 20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No sane B'crat could have decided that such an RfA lacked the support of the community. We're not proposing to give B'crats unfettered discretion, just endorsing their authority to factor the number of votes into a determination of whether there exists a consensus in support of the candidate. A B'crat simply could not "choose" not to promote someone who had received a significant number of legitimate votes, and what constitutes this significant number is fairly a matter of common sense. For example, you would not imagine that a candidate with a seven-day closing tally of 2/0/0 should promoted, would you? bd2412 T 20:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, a sane BCrat would extend the nom, but I am not sure I would have a problem with that if the 2 supporters gave extensive resaoning for their votes. If the candidate had really been terrible, wouldn't they receive at least one oppose vote? Some people do not vote just to prevent piling on. But then again, that's why I'll never be made BCrat. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well bureaucrats can extend polls now. Therefore, the current system is fine! Izehar 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The difference to me is that the first leaves b'crats to continue to use their discretion in the same way as the past, with no special change in how to deal with low vote candidates. Option 2 says that RfA voters are concerned about the numbers and want b'crats to pay extra attention to the issue but does not suggest hard numbers. -- Cecropia 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I was operating under the impression that BCrats always paid "extra attention". That is their role as BCrat, to pay their fullest attention when closing RfAs to determining consensus. Was I wrong? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify the point. B'crats have to determine consensus, which is not the same as vote counting. In order to determine consensus, b'crats need to understand not only how the community feels about an individual nominee, but what standards the community feels determine consensus for all candidates. If Option 2 were to have the most support, it would imply that the minimum number of votes that a candidate receives is now a more important issue than b'crats have been led to believe until now, and deserves a least a little extra weight.

I'll give you a concrete example: Right now, I would be hard pressed not to extend and possibly fail a nomination with a total of only 10 votes, of which 2 were opposes, even though that is 80%. That is bureaucrat discretion. OTOH, I would be comfortable promoting someone with 50 votes, of which 11 were garden-variety opposes (< 80%) after carefully examining the arguments raised on both sides. What's the difference? The one with 50 total votes has had a lot more editors paying a lot closer attention to the candidate and I can be more confident that all the bouquets and all the warts are on the table.--Cecropia 21:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If Option 2 were to have the most support, it would imply that the minimum number of votes that a candidate receives is now a more important issue than b'crats have been led to believe until now, and deserves a least a little extra weight - not really, as that "implication" is not at all clear, and probably not what people think they're voting on. The two options are identical, i.e. bureaucrats decide, as per your example above. Dan100 (Talk) 10:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Radical motion (Archive 45)

Regarding the above, here's a radical motion. HALT the RFA system. Voting will continue on current candidates, but there will be no new candidates for a week or two. Having no promotions for a short while won't harm the wiki and gives us time to work out the kinks for a new system.

New system: take a leaf out of WP:FAC. New nomination pages shall have two sections. One with reasons for why the person should be an admin, citing good things they've done. And one other with reasons for why the person should not be an admin. People are encouraged to be concise and cite diffs. After a week, the bureaucrats decide if the person has (1) done enough "good things" (i.e. has enough experience) and (2) done few "bad things". Advantages should be obvious. Disads include more work for the 'crats, and possible allegations of cabalism.

R adiant _>|< 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. I think it should be somewhat similar, except only editors with 500 + edits should have suffurage, voters should be required to cite reasons why they oppose or support, and it be required that voters do proper esearch on each canidate before a vote. -Zero^Talk 15:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that without suffrage the procedure turns into a circus. On the other hand, reasons cited pro and contra often consist of bullshit like "I think he would be impartial" or "I believe the user will abuse his rights". Precise links to the editor's previous edits are indispensable to assess whether objections are genuine or trollish. --Ghirla | talk 15:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean no voting. Use reasons rather than pileons. R adiant _>|< 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Gets back to the idea of consensus, farther away from voting. Surely we won't die if we don't have any RfAs for a week or two... -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Raul's tenth law is relevant to this discussion:

For Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: People support on the basis of a good track record with no "bad" incidents. That is, they think someone is a good admin because of a lack of evidence that person is bad. So when asked why they think someone would be good admin, they have nothing specific to point at (merely a lack of bad behavior). On the other hand, when opposing someone, generally they oppose on the basis of one or a small number of incidents which exposed that nominees's judgement as questionable -- that is, they have a small set of incidents which they can point at affirmatively and say "these are why I oppose". As a result, oppose votes are much easier to explain than support votes.

Corollary - Because specific incidents constitute evidence against bad behavior, whereas it takes a long track record of good behavior to become an admin, in a given time it is possible to build up far more bad evidence than good evidence. This explains the RFA effect often derided as "people having long memories" - that for a given number of bad incidents, it takes a very long time to build up sufficient good behavior to counterbalance the bad.

When I have more time, I'll check in with my opinion on RfA. Carbonite | Talk 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I think it be mandatory that all aspiring voters be required to do research on the nominee first. If they support, provide a diff, if they oppose, provide a diff. And I think suffurage very important - 500 + edits or more should be sufficent. Hell, make it a 1000. And the closing Bcrat absolutely needs to check thee allegations and reasons for one's vote. I hope we are serious about this, because the latest "spite votes" by Freestylefrappe and "no-concensus" votes by Massingvino have been the most slanderous votes I seen in the rfa nominations since I've come to wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(responding to several people) (1) You can't require people to evaluate a candidate; it's virtually impossible to know if they have or haven't. Ideally, I think we'd all love to have people who vote for admins to actually review candidates. I do this myself, but it's a major factor in why I don't vote very often. It's time consuming to really review a candidate even just to vote on them. When I nominate someone myself, it takes a minimum of two hours to review them. (2) This is another solution looking for a problem. I have frequently stated that to "fix" RfA, we must first identify what is wrong with it. One of the best ways of determining that is understanding what makes a good admin, what makes a bad admin, and seeing how RfA is filtering candidates vs. that metric. But, since we lack feedback loops on admin behavior (once an admin, it's almost impossible to lose it...no accountability, no feedback) we have no way of knowing if a particular behavior is good or bad for an admin. Thus, at this point, any changes that we are to make to RfA are just as likely to induce problems as they are to fix problems. This might be a fantastic idea to "fix" RfA. It might be a terrible idea. Problem is; we currently lack any means to determine whether it is a good idea or bad idea. Recently, we had some people suggesting a minimum of 30 support votes to give someone adminship. Yet, nobody...nobody...could provide any evidence that suggested that candidates with <30 votes were somehow bad. All that was cited was 2 new admins in a 30 day period...10% of the pool. Is change good or bad? Who knows. We don't have any way of knowing. So, feel free to pick up the guns and blast away into the darkness. But, don't be surprised when you hear screams of pain. --Durin 16:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cruel, truthful, and graphic. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But the suffurage, my good men, the suffurage..! And what about the diffs..?! Surely een those minor aspects would help improve the process. -Zero^Talk 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So basically you're saying we need to create accountability for existing admins in order to have a good way of judging prospective admins (not to mention for creating a failsafe). That sounds reasonable, actually. I agree that at present, admins are not really accountable for anything, and they should be. R adiant _>|< 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your very asute comment sums up my concensus quite nicely. Although my main point was also to keep bad-faith voters out of the nomination. I have seen rididculous amounts of votes based on the most petty of views. (FSF's spite votes are unacceptable and should be marked out). Nominating administrators should be based on was best for that person, the community and the encyclopedia as a whole. And one more thing: No people under currently under rfar should be allowed to vote ethier. -Zero^Talk 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So guilt before innocence? Even if ArbCom were a court of law (which it isn't), presuming guilt of someone simply because they are under ArbCom is, I think, a very bad idea. Under the current RfA system, a bureaucrat has no obligation for transparency of their decision. I think this is a good idea. If it was transparent, being a bureaucrat would be an awful job. With the opaqueness of the process, bureaucrats are free to discount whatever votes they wish for whatever reason. I think they already do this on a regular basis. This is also why it is important to be very careful about who becomes a bureaucrat. They must be absolutely, implicitly trustable more so than an admin or ArbCom member because their decisions can not be scrutinized by the public eye. Currently, our current batch of bureaucrats does a pretty good job of this. I've noticed only a couple of what I would call irregularities in the last 400+ RfAs. --Durin 16:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The rfa process has become sickeningly slanderous. Its time to crack down, and its time to crack down hard. My suffurage query is still my most important ideal on this subject however- 1000 + votes. Real simple. Keeps out (most) of the trolls, and we don't have to worry about clueless newbies assumming wrong allegations. One vote I've heard flaunted to the point of obsesssion is the half-ass "I've never met this editor". -Zero^Talk 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I once engaged in attempts to get people to stop attacking other people for their votes, and instead focus on the votes themselves, if they felt they had to comment. I was roundly attacked for doing so. I guess that followed; tell the attackers to stop attacking and you get attacked. Still, as I noted elsewhere, this is a volunteer effort. I don't volunteer to be attacked. So, I gave up. RfA is an inhospitable place at times. But, until someone takes some very direct action to take a stance of intolerance against abuse at RfA, the abuses will continue. As for what people think are viable basis on which to vote; again, bureaucrats are the people who decide. I've had one vote discounted because the bureaucrat felt my rationale was poor. C'est la vie. I'm sure the bureaucrats are capable of handling this. --Durin 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The main question is...are the admins that are currently active lousy enough to suggest that we are promoting admins that shouldn't be admins? That would be the only reason I see to change the current system.--MONGO 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah I tend to agree. I have still not seen any hard evidence that there is a real problem with too many admins or bad admins, (in fact I thinkw eneed more admins not less) let alone that any changes to the system would fix that problem. Simply put: I've seen no evidence of a problem or that these changes would fix that problem. Until then I am opposed to any changes.Gator (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you see no problem, you have too little experience here. One example. One of the most active wikipedians ever, User:Mikkalai was blocked for the first time in his 50,000+ edits when he fended off attacks by proven socks of a troll, who is now banned from editing Wikipedia. The admin who blocked Mikka was elected a week before that and nominated by a troll who indulged in that sockpuppetry. Mikkalai got pissed off and does no editing since then. This is a problem: the admin who scared one of the most prolific editors from editing never heard about Wikipedia:Controversial blocks and/or decided to support a troll of the same nationality as himself who had him nominated to adminship to boot. The damage is irreparable, as there is no other editor who can make such an amount of anti-vandalism work as Mikkalai had done.--Ghirla | talk 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Suffrage. If applied, it would significantly increase the amount of time it takes for a bureaucrat to process RfAs. Instead of that, it might be easier to semi-protect all RfA pages. Of course, this would require admin intervention. Thus, until an admin got to the page and semi-protected it, it would still be possible for new and unregistered users to add comments/make votes. However, there are going to be people (and I think rightfully so) raising an issue with preventing people from voicing their opinions. Let's remember something; Wikipedia works on a volunteer basis. The more we do to make Wikipedia the realm of the elite, the realm of those who have been here for a while, the realm of the trusted, the lesser our pool of volunteers will be.
Nonsense. Too often we care about boorish newbies but scare established wikipedians from editing. Do you know that the number of editors making over 100 edits per months remains virtually the same? --Ghirla | talk 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Accountability for admins. That's a problem indeed. I've tried to address admin shortcomings with admins before, and about half the time I run into a buzz saw of aggression back at me, even though I make signficant attempts at being polite. Most people do not like to be told they are in the wrong. We'd much rather hear we're doing ok, and when told we're wrong we fight against it. Human nature I think. Anyways, the main point I'm trying to make on this is that we don't have any idea what makes a good admin or a bad admin. Thus, changing RfA to produce "better" candidates is an utterly flawed notion until we know what a better candidate is. It's like sending race car drivers out on the track, nebulously deciding that our processes for determining who to send out are bad and thus changing the process...and never once having any understanding of how fast those drivers are, how safe they are, etc. We have no clue what makes a good or bad admin. There's no feedback mechanism. Without it, we're just shooting in the dark trying to find solutions to "fix" RfA. Most people seem to agree RfA is bleeding. Yet, not one of us has any idea where the cut is in such a way that we can back it up with even soft evidence (much less hard evidence). General agreement with MONGO. --Durin 16:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Whenever fixing RFA has come up in the past I've always said that by the only measure we have RFA is doing ok, at least it isn't so bad that a major fix is in order. Recently though I've been re-thinking that. Slim Virgin mentioned that there were a couple admins she felt weren't doing a good job, in the same vein, there are a couple I'm familiar with that really don't seem to get it. I'm guessing that many people reading this know an admin or 2 that probably shouldn't be admins at this point in their Wiki-careers. When their numbers aren't significant it doesn't have much of an effect, but we're producing what, 8-10 admins a week now? The cumulative effect of a larger number of ineffective admins is just as destructive as one really malicious admin. The problem is that their effects aren't obvious and it's bad form to name them so it's really hard to do anything. An RFC type process or the one Radiant suggested would increase discussion, reduce the whole beauty pageant aspect that some have mentioned and make people actually add to the discussion rather than just voting. Now, this wouldn't help with the problem admins we might have now but at least it would decrease the number we create in the future. I'd like to have a process run without voting for once...bureaucrats are capable of reading and interpreting comments/arguments without having voting involved. Rx StrangeLove 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a test drive would be in order? I'm open to any and all suggestions at this point. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course. We need a new way of doing things; infact, that's why we're discussing it now. I also have good faith in our Bcrats', and I am positive they are competent in this procedure. But, we as the community, are going to put in our two cents and help them out. No longer shall we see baseless trolling and Spiteful vandalism on rfa's. We settle this now. -Zero^Talk 17:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"We need a new way of doing things". Prove it. --Durin 19:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Homework for RFA regulars (Archive 46)

That's right: homework. If people want the process changed, then I suggest less talk and more action. Your mission, should you prove your insanity^W^W^Wchoose to accept it, is the following:

Edit User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform with the following guidelines:
- What is good about the existing RFA
- What is not-so-good about the existing RFA
- Different ways of doing RFA; no idea is too stupid (just don't break this rule)

Use the talk page, come up with different ideas. I want to see that page filled with suggestions and your thoughts.

The goal: By the end of this week, I would like to see a rough draft of a modified RFA system. If the community agrees, we will take the new RFA out for a test drive, and then let the community decide on whether or not to keep it.

Good luck. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(le' ZIP!) -Zero^Talk 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, will do! — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to add a little rain to the parade, but any scheme concoted in one week will be unfit for purpose by virtue of having been concoted in one week flat. We can't very well test-drive it, either: we need either to take it or leave it, otherwise the legitimacy of adminships granted during the ~~car wreck~~ test-drive will be questioned. There is good reason for wanting more talk, not less. Plus there's the fact that RfA is not broken and does not need fixing. -Splash^talk 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I agree with Splash as well (I didn't notice his response at first). Grue 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a bureaucrat, I think it's broken. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not "broken" per se', just needs a serious overhall, like the Mega Man articles that I work on. Which in fact, I'll shall work on right now. -Zero^Talk 18:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's got broken elements, as all of the "popularity contests", revenge-voting, and IRC-influenced decisions will attest to. While I agree that a longer time for consideration might be necessary (and I would hope Linuxbeak would extend if people are still working on a proposal), as long as what comes out is not radically changed (Jimbo appoints admins, bureaucrats start rolling dice and promoting by UserID), there should be no legitimacy problems. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that comments be moved to the discussion page in question. Otherwise, people wanting this process to move forward (independant of whether it will be adopted) will be sidelined by a discussion here. By all means, if you don't think it's broken, feel free to comment over there and quantify why the RFA process "aint broke." Avriette 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"By the end of this week, I would like to see a rough draft of a modified RFA system." Sigh. Ok, first, tell me what's wrong with the admin pool right now? What proof do you have the system is BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE? What targets do you have in mind for evaluating whether a change has the desired effect? It's like a broken record around here. "RfA is broken! <brawk> Polly wanna cracker! <brawk>". Come on...evidence...prove it's broken! Then, show how the "reform" will fix what is broken. --Durin 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- RFA is producing admins that are not familar with policy and do not effectively carry it out. In some cases they cause damage by misapplying policy. As I said above, I know several admins that do not apply blocking/deletion standards correctly and have not been responsive to comments/questions. It's my feeling that without the beauty pageant aspect of RFAs it would produce better admins and without voting bureaucrats would be freer to select people that have shown themselves to understand policy. There's nothing sacred about how RFA works at the moment. And I'm not going to name names. Rx StrangeLove 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Which admins in particular? Let's stop beating around the bush. If you're not willing to name names, we're not going to get anywhere. You're asserting proof that can't be verified. Second, why haven't these admins been subject to an RfC? Third, when were these admins made into admins and what was different about the RfA process when they are adminned (if anything). Fourth, if nothing is different, what can we discern about the RfA process as it is now that might have allowed this set of admins to get through and what could we change about RfA to prevent that from happening in the future? These are the sorts of questions that need to be asked. To just say "It sucks" and "Here's how we're going to do it from now on" (which is essentially what many of these arguments boils down to) is just as likely to cause harm as it is to cause good. --Durin 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    - - I'm not going to name names, for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would hang a system-wide problem on the backs of a small group of editors. It's a fairness issue. Anyone can look into the deletion/block logs and admin boards to decide for themselves if there's a problem. As far as RFCs go, it's too big of a stick and carries too much baggage...again, it's a system wide problem that an RFC on one or two editors won't fix. For what it's worth the admins I am referring to have been admins for less than 6 months so were subject to the same general rules as RFC is working with now.
      - As far as saying it sucks and trying to force something on people, I don't know where that comes from. That's why we're talking about it....you're acting like the very act of talking about it is bad. There's no reason on earth not to talk about it and keep an open mind. Flexability is good, and there's a whole page where people are talking about RFA, is it broken? it's not broken? what can and can't be done....no one is forcing anything on anyone. But if you going to make me list names of admins I think shouldn't have passed on RFA, I'm not going to...again, it's up to everyone who has an interest to look and decide for themselves. I'm not asking anyone to take my word on it. Rx StrangeLove 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        Good point. However, it need not be your personal opinion. Are there any admins that, within a few weeks after being "instated", were the subject of strong controversy? I can think of one, who did a number of controversial deletes (don't recall the name, sorry, but it was all over DRV). He got flamed rather nastily (by what I think was a former "enemy"), but reformed within days. The question would be, could this controversy have been avoided if RFA had been different. R adiant _>|< 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Check out the admin's noticeboard. I've seen at least two instances this week of a new admin who was so inexperienced with the processes he was performing that he had to ask on the noticeboard whether he could do something. Not exactly good credentials, if you ask me. One of them used the phrase "I've used up my three reverts", implying a clear misunderstanding of the 3RR. Radiant_>|< 21:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Admins do not spring fully-formed from RFA, nor descend in perfumed clouds on the back of a swan. We all have to learn, and the best way to do that is by doing. But I would much rather admins asked if they were unsure rather than just blundering about. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        That is true, and it's no biggie, but we do have a rather extensive "recommended reading list" for admins. My example may not be the best, but I am one of the few people who opposes admin candidates if they lack experience with process, and in my opinion that factor should be weighed in more strongly. R adiant _>|< 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    - While I understand that we don't expect them to be mature at birth, but I often see comments that indicate they should never have been given the mop. Responses to "Did you check the history before you speedy deleted this?" like "Oh, am I meant to?" no longer suprise me.
      I understand the desire for a crisp quantative metric, but good luck. The only thing that springs to mind would be a ratio of restored deletes to speedies comparing admins at various stages of maturity, but that's a sparse sample and no assurances that we're catching bad speedies anyway. How about this as a metric: how many people are saying the system needs improvement, what's the ratio or Bcats to admins to Morlocks in that sample, and how much time (eg. votes) do they spend on RfA? If the people who spend a lot of time on RfA think there is a problem, then there might be a problem.
      brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Aaron just call most Wikipedians Morlocks!? Who are the Eloi? Jonathunder 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Rx Strangelove said "it would hang a system-wide problem on the backs of a small group of editors." My apologies for my confusion, but it seems you're advocating system wide changes because of a small group of editors. If there truly are just one or two admins who are a problem, then RfA, which has promoted hundreds of admins over the last few months, can hardly be said to be broken. Also, Rx Strangelove said "you're acting like the very act of talking about it is bad." Not quite. I'm saying that suggesting solutions without first having an idea what the problem is is counterproductive and will not produce solutions that solve the problem. Lots of people have suggested various forms of "RfA reform". Nobody has yet fully identified and provided evidence of their being a systemic problem with RfA. If you want to "fix" RfA, fine. Fix it. But, you could just as easily make it worse if you don't know what the problem is. Quoting from the movie Apollo 13, "Let's work the problem people. Let's not make it worse by guessing". Right now, all we're doing is guessing and suggesting solutions based on those guesses. None of us, myself included, have any evidential basis to say "RfA is broken because....". --Durin 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that logic is flawed....your statement isn’t reflexive, that is, there's potentially one problem we're talking about but (again potentially) a larger group of admins contributing to it. I found a couple admins that aren't up to snuff, Slim ran into a couple and presumably others would to if they looked so it’s not based on just a couple admins. My point is that they shouldn’t be singled out when the group they belong to is possibly much larger. And the flip side is that if people look, maybe they don't find anymore. So then we don't worry about that piece but there is an idea of what the problem is, it's RFA promoting admins that are not familiar with policy and use their admin powers with that flawed understanding. How wide spread the scope of the problem is unknown but you're wrong to say that no one has an idea of the problem. Like I said above, the RFA reform page has identified a group of problems, the work to be done now is to see if they are indeed problems and then fix them if they are. Rx StrangeLove 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- How about you proved a metric then? Give us something, anything, that we can measure its sucess or failure by other than our collective subjective feeling that it's not perfect. Otherwise, you're throwing up an argument that's irrefutable. And, by the way, even a totally random change might improve it or might do nothing, and would not be permenant. What's the harm in trying, it's not like lives are at stake. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Because the last time RfA reform in the form of 30 minimum support votes to pass was suggested, it turned out there were two...just two...problem admins that were the catalyst for the suggested reform. Once again, it appears there are "1 or 2" problem admins that are providing the catalyst to change a system that has handled hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of RfA noms, apparently so successfully that the best we can come up with is four problem admins (assuming no overlap) as catalysts for the last two reforms. Fix RfA because of a problem with less than 1% of the admins that get promoted? A few people also recently felt that the average number of votes per RfA had gone up significantly. I was able to show that it, in fact, had not. We can have all the feelings we'd like. Without any sort of evidence to support it, it's meaningless. I am not against change. I am against random change, especially when the RfA system seems to be doing a pretty darned good job of filtering just as it is right now. --Durin 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Gritty and nitty

I'd be really interested in a link to the analysis that shows that we're not getting more participation on RfA. I also notice that you're not providing a counterexample to tell us how good things are. Again, if we don't have a metric, any metric, then random change really isn't a problem. It's managed to turn us from slime molds into wikipedians, although it's taken a long time. I again propose that we start with the metric of number of speedies restored. It's crap, but it's something. And since you appear to want examples, let's start by comparing the numbers for a member of the CVU recently promoted to say, Splash. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a graph showing average # of votes per RfA over time: Image:VotesPerRfA.png. From the linear trendline, it appears we've had a roughly 10% increase in RfA participation through the 7 month period of the data. It is a change, but it's not a large change. My counterexample is that the changes that are being suggested are being suggested because of the wrongdoings of 2 admins per suggested change. It's been suggested that the problem has arisen in the last six months. In the last six months, we've created 291 admins. 4 new problem admins (assuming no overlap) of 291 is 1.4% of the total new admins. So, we're suggesting changing RfA when it appears that RfA gets it right better than 98% of the time? Number of speedies restored might be useful. But, I don't know how to go about collecting that data. Suggestions on how to collect this data? --Durin 16:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
That graph isn't providing me with enough information to make a sound conclusion. Can you either present it in box-and-whisker form so that we can also see the medians and distributions as well as the mean, or provide the base data that you've used? Looking at what's on the RFA page now:

S    O   N   S+O+N
38   15  5   58
69   18  12  99
21   3   1   25
28   1   1   30
48   4   2   54
26   3   6   35
41   2   1   44
92   0   0   92
50   1   1   52
31   19  1   51        
Mean   Median  SD   
54     51.5    24.4

And noting that these are in order from newest to oldest so the bottom half aren't going to change much but the top half may, I'd think that the distribution isn't that good.

Also, your drill down to 98% is based on way to small a sample, and a biased one if I understand you correctly. People are pretty loathe to come right out and say "Foo should never have been made an admin because of this and this and this," for good reason.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

- I worry about anyone who tries to standardize their deviations, or admit to skew. :) Anyways, I think the chart shows the point that I made some weeks ago, that RfA votes have increased only a little bit. That was my point. As per sample set, I realize people are reluctant to name individuals. To me, that's part of the problem. These problem admins should be taken to task and they're not. The point is, people are clamoring for change yet have not been able to identify what is wrong. The last two changes suggested have been pinned on the backs of, at most, 4 admins. That's not a glaringly clear basis on which to change RfA. I think the point's been made. --Durin 15:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to take the analysis back at least to the start of 2005. It also might be interesting to look at the number of RfAs running at any one time. More concurrent RfAs may equal less attention to the merits of any particular RfA equals "rubber stamp." -- Cecropia 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps. As for going back to the beginning of 2005, the data exists but I haven't collected it. That's a lot of work. I've been intending to get to it some day. --Durin 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll (Archive 46)

Please take a look at this straw poll (emphatically not a policy proposal) to gauge community opinion on several admin-related matters. R adiant _>|< 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please notice (Archive 46)

Everybody, please notice this discussion. Thank you. Redux 15:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Suspension (Archive 47)

We (Linuxbeak and I) have temporarily suspended RFA as we are planning to implement a new system for RFA for a trial period after all current noms are cleared out. If you would like to see what this system will look like and/or discuss it please see /Draft. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh Ooh, have you been talking with Brenneman too? Kim Bruning 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#brenneman, advocating similar ideas! Kim Bruning 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, could we skip the whole popularity contest part entirely? Just examine qualifications and see if that's sufficient :-) Kim Bruning 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually how about just do the experiment in-line, so new noms with the new method, and old ones just run off? Should be no big deal, as long as you have notices or so... Kim Bruning 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh. -Splash^talk 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for this? Worldtraveller 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I don't mean to question our bureaucrats here, but I don't think this is the way we should be doing this. We shouldn't suspend the current process, which isn't in immediate need of attention, to test a draft that has little community input yet; discussion should take place first, a consensus reached to test it, and then test it, provided the community agrees. While I highly respect both of you, I don't think that being a bureaucrat should give you all the ability to switch processes or test these processes; we've entrusted you all to interpret results of RfA, not change the process without community input first. I urge you to unsuspend RfA and let us discuss your proposal before testing it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; I can't see widespread support for this proposal that has suddenly sprung from an indeterminate location. Also, as Flcelloguy says, RfA should be unsuspended (since the 'crats don't have authority to do it on their own say-so) until this is actually worked through a bit more. -Splash^talk 21:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine...be bold and unsuspend if you guys are going to be that way about it. We've had like two weeks of discussion all of which has been implemented into that. You want to be tied up in more bureaucratic discussion? Fine! Just because I'm called a bureaucrat doesn't mean I am one. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How does stopping the current process assist with creating a new one, exactly? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh hey, stop bothering two hard working wikipedians. (by which I mean Ilyanep and Linuxbeak)

Even so, it might be wisest to just run experimental style noms alongside the old style ones, rather than suspending the lot, that way less people will complain. Always go for the smallest footprint where you ignore the least number of rules :-) Kim Bruning 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of suspending, maybe we can provide it as option - if someone wants to nominate anyone under this scheme, they may do it ... ? Tintin (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion, but experience shows that if you put things to votes and polls, few changes gather 70%. Whilst if you make well thought out changes, and are willing to revert if they fail, things actually happen. (See Deletion reform and WP:PROD). The question is not, have we have enough pages of discussion or the requisit big poll, it is, is there substantive objection to this change? And do people think a trial run will do substantial harm? Sometimes a little less talk, and a little more boldness (open boldness) might take us forward quicker. Wikipedia is becoming inately conservative in regard to change.--Doc ^ask? 22:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It seems to me that we're becoming policy slaves, and that's not just with this. That's with everything in general. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes yes!!!! — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of policy at all. It's just that, all of a sudden, someone comes along with a new scheme that at least several decent editors have problems with, decides to suspend everything, replace everything, and sound upset when anyone disagrees. Discussion is not some king of evil to be avoided: if people have difficulties with the proposal, then, well, tough. There's no reason to get upset about it. -Splash^talk 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspending the current system while working out a new one was entirely unecessary and overreaching. Also why before now wasn't the draft page more blatantly advertised? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just start using the new nomination for and proceedure immediately. No need to suspend nominations - just have an instant change over. --Doc ^ask? 22:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Run the old and new process simultaneously during the trial period, allowing new candidates to choose which way to do it. Total time of the new process should be reduced to 7 days so they run the same length. Testing the new process is much better than debating it ad nauseum. NoSeptember ^talk 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured it would be way to confusing to do that. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could ask new nominees to consider the new nomination process and ask them to decide if they want to do it the old way or the new way, as a transition. You can add a red bar to mark new noms from old noms. I think the change is a good change, just that there's no need to paralyze RFA while it is being done. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what we need is a volunteer, clearly. I've been thinking of nominating myself for RFA for some time. I would be prepared to submit myself under this new system as a test case. I would want to make sure that the system is for real, though--if I did so, would people show up there and participate, and would there be some direction from RFA to the new page? If I get some positive feedback to this offer, I'll do this. Chick Bowen 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would be willing to throw myself up under the new system, not out of expectation of winning (1,200-odd edits over three-odd years = LOSE) but just to see what happens. Lord Bob 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Me three. I don't actually WANT to be an admin, mind you, and I would expect to lose under either the old or new system (3 months of activity, 1700 edits) so maybe I'm not a very good test case but if it would help. With the caveat that if I am confirmed, I reserve the right to decline it! I support running both processes at once, by the way... ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to argue about suspension, the new system is reasonable. Let's just start using it. It's got to be at least as good as the old way. Friday (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I remain unconvinced that the preposed changes will actually provide an improvement, but I have no problem with testing it out for a week or two to see what is working and what isn't. I'd prefer that tests run concurrently with the current system so as not to force any of the candidates to have to try something brand new. Dragons flight 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am curious, I've tried to find who can actually change policy for RFA, however I can't find it. Really the beauros should have the authority, since the RFA process is basically to give the communities opinion about a prospective admin to them, therefore they should be allowed to change the process to however they see fit. Require them to throw softballs into a peach basket for all I care, in the end its nots the communities decision, rather the beauros. Mike _{(T C)} 00:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WE can change the guidelines. Gonna help out? :-) Kim Bruning 00:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Might need some last minute tweaks before testing. And perhaps we could even figure out a test where we could try to exclude the poll part entirely. (This might be tricky, but interesting and fun :-) Kim Bruning 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This process really needs to be changed. (Archive 48)

The entire thing is too subjective and there exists too large a faction that will simply vote oppose no matter what (e.g. user:Radiant). I think that the entire process to become an admin should be changed so that it's more objective and more than .8% of users can become admins. Here's how I think it should work:

The user wanting to become an admin presents what he/she feels is his best work on wikipedia and writes about that and why he/she would make a good admin. He/she then has to get a certain number of "endorsements" from users he or she has come across in the encyclopedia (say 10-15). After the required number of endorsements is met, other users can sign the comments section regarding their opinion on the candidate. Finally, the bureaucrats, taking all "evidence" into consideration, have the support/oppose vote themselves.

Infinitely more fair, no? Juppiter 08:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What you propose is more similar to how it actually works than you think. Bureaucrats already have discretion, and there are no hard-and-fast rules for how large a majority is required for them to promote someone—so if a user is being blocked for what seems not to be a good reason, they'll be promoted anyway. There are already descriptions of what administrative jobs a user would do, and "endorsements" in the form of Support votes. The only things that are different from what you say are that a) only one Bureaucrat makes the decision, because it would be a waste of time to require several to vote against each other, and b) we really don't need a large number of new admins. -- SCZenz 08:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we were to call these folks "trusted users", which is accurate (and wikinews is thinking of switching to that name) , well, do you really want large numbers of *untrusted* users let loose on the site? Indeed. Kim Bruning 10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd really oppose that term "trusted users". If anything the term should be made somewhat unflattering, like "bureaucrat" already is. I think the term "bureaucrat" helps dissuade people from trying to become one for the wrong reasons, and is thus a good thing. Maybe "admin" could become "janitor" or something. Phr 14:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that we have a large faction who oppose no matter what. Radiant, who you mention, had pretty strict criteria for supporting, stricter than mine, but he supported several candidates, some of them contentious like Aaron Brenneman and Hermione1980. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there some sense that there's currently an admin shortage? If there's enough admins now, why look for ways to speed up the process of making more? Why not slow it down, even? Is there really .8% now? That's something like 8000 admins, a pretty big number IMO. Phr 12:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No we are not at 8000 admins, according to Wikipedia:List of administrators we have 824, 683 of which are "active", 93 "semi-active" and 48 "inactive". I believe that the bulk of admin work is carried out by a hundred or so admins. Take a look at RC patrol some time, nonsense does slip through the cracks there, so there at least I think that we are understaffed with admins as it is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I heard there was about a million users, so .8% would be 8000. I guess it should say .08%. RC patrol can be done by anyone (I've done it a little) and doesn't need admins. Non-admin RC patrollers can put notices at WP:AIV and they get handled pretty fast. So stuff slipping through RC patrol doesn't indicate lack of admins. Does anything else? Phr 14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here I am butting in again with my "2 cents worth". Normal editors should be able to apply for rollback to help with vandalism. But admins are often looked to to settle disputes, more and more often. The criteria should be a bit tighter there. Perhaps Admin level 1 and 2, who knows. But there seems to be a lot of wheel warring lately, and people who are trusted shouldn't engage in this. Perhaps wheel warring should carry a stronger penalty. Also: Admins are often not being held accountable for what they do, and at articles like Brian Peppers, have created masses of conflict by arbitrarily bypassing procedure. I think this is going to have to be altered, as there should be another level between "trused users" and Bureaucrats. Trusted can be immature to some extent, but administrators need to be a little more firm in the maturity department. So we have more complicated, beaureaucratic policy on one hand and chaos on the other. We'll likely have to choose the lesser of two evils. --DanielCD 16:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, we should just create more 'crats and give them the authority to butt into wheel wars, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Below I didn't mean that 'crats shouldn't get involved. Just that admin have the best chance to stop conflicts early. FloNight ^talk 19:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer to peer is much better. Calling in 'crats may increase the tension in admin to admin disputes. Far better if they can work it out between each other with the least intervention possible. Two or 3 Joe Average's giving *quality* feedback is better than one 'crat. After new admin are comfortable with the nuts and bolts, they might actively practice dispute resolution. It is a learned skill. FloNight ^talk 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be editors, then basic trustee level, then admins. Amin should be strengthened a bit, and reduced in number slightly, or at least have entry tightened. Self-nominations should just go. --DanielCD 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we were to change the way groups of permissions are granted, the wisest thing we could do is limit the blocking of logged-in users. Blocking and unblocking of logged-in users (not IPs) has been a major part of nearly all serious conflicts involving admins, particularly considering that its effective and proper use is fairly rare compared to deletion, protection, and blocks of IPs, all of which are done routinely. I'd like to see us grant that priviledge fairly routinely but only after someone has already been an admin for a considerable time. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While most of our block-worthy vandalism comes from IP addresses, there is a sizeable amount that comes from logged-in users who create accounts just to vandalize. I don't think the community would be served by having fewer people able to perform that essential part of fighting vandalism. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally with ESkog on this. Some vandals have gamed the WP systems so well that they register to indulge in page-move vandalism and image vandalism. Also, if a registered user's account is hacked and the hacker is vandalising, a block is immediately called for. Also, it is a good idea to dig the archives before saying things like "self-noms should go" as it has been discussed in the recent past and the consensus was against dis-allowing self-noms. --Gurubrahma 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It might also be a good idea to take a good look at admins who were selfnoms to see if there's anything whatever less trustworthy or trusted about them. What's the point of having a system where self-nomination is obligatory for bureaucrats and outlawed for admins, other than the pure pleasure of legalism? We should try to trim the rule system down to a tight package instead of encouraging it to sprout into such luxuriance. Extra bishpoints for selfnoms! | talk 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

I'm a self-nom, and aside from applying the mischief rule instead of the literal rule, I don't think I'm a rogue admin. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Self noms are fine when done by a user who has been here long enough to understand the system. Its the newbies who nom themselves at 150 edits that makes self-noms look bad. So we should strongly urge getting yourself nominated to reduce the later, but ignore self-nom concerns about the former. NoSeptember ^talk 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kicking DfA in the pants (Archive 48)

Cross post, please reply at Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship
I've suggested a notice be placed on the main page that's a "half way" step towards trying out DFA.
<reverse psychology>Comments totally unwelcome. </reverse psychology>
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 23:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA reform (Archive 49)

Today has been a real eye opener for me, you could say. Would their be any objection to amending the the RFA nomination process, prohibiting votes prior the acceptance by the nominee? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No (to having objections); I would strongly support this, as nominations aren't supposed to be open until the candidate has accepted and the page has been placed on the RfA page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to this. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(It shouldn't have been.) It's not entirely clear to me that this would work, although it is the obvious solution. People will vote anyway and though regulars will learn, the newer editors won't and it will be, with near every RfA, an unwinnable battle to suppress the votes (evil) until an acceptance. What would work is reversing the creepish change to the rules of a few months ago and simply posting all RfAs straight to the main page and leaving them for the candidate to accept or decline. Clearly, declined nominations with many 'preemptive' opposes are a problem in this scenario, although we did fine for a number of years with it....-Splash^talk 02:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It begs the question "why are people creating RfA pages before both nominator and nominee are in agreement to proceed?" Don't create the page until just before its ready to be rolled out publicly. Mine was created three weeks ahead of time, fortunately, I was unpopular enough that no one voted for me during those three weeks ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Because by convention nominees accept their nomination on the RfA page itself. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose an RfA equivalent of the new {{prod}} system with deletion. Names could be posted on a list with a note that, absent some objection within a set period, they will be promoted. If no objection was stated, the subject would be promoted without going through a discussion (because it would be clear that no one had any distrust to express towards the potential admin). If anyone objected for any reason, the 'crats would check to make sure the objection was not simple trolling, and if it was not, then the RfA would go to a regular discussion to determine consensus (I'm going to say discussion instead of vote because I am a boundless optimist). bd2412 T 02:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is a good idea, as the scrutiny is part of the process. Back in the days of my RfA, I looked at it as a way to get input on my performance as an editor, not just as a request for added permissions; I'm pretty sure other editors see it the same way too. Also, it is too nebulous (e.g. "Is this comment trolling? Where do we draw the line?") to work. Part of the reason RfA is so numbers-oriented is that it makes it easier on the bureaucrats to make their decision; already those RfAs that fall in that 75%-80% gray area are controversial. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a 73% RfA that is controversial this very night. NoSeptember ^talk 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd trust the 'crats to know true trolling when they see it (e.g. an oppose by a brand-spankin' new account; or by an editor who has decided to oppose 30 RfA's in a row with the same explanation for each; or based on a single typo six months ago). Although RfA is a good place to get scrutiny, constructive criticism can always be dropped on an editor's talk page. Anyway, it's just a thought on getting non-controversial promotions through the system without the big hullabaloo that raises accusations that RfA is a popularity contest. I realize this may be received as an odd message, but while my own RfA was gratifying, it was also a bit excessive in the end. bd2412 T 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I trust the 'crats all that much after tonight's showing. They didn't look at the reasoning for the pros and went straight with the number of votes, no matter whether the opposes were shown to have been based on misconceptions or plain not understanding of the issue at hand. --Mmounties (Talk)

03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a mind-expanding idea. The simplicity of it is slightly overpowering. Some immediate observations: it would save everyone time in pile-on support RfAs and might help focus scrutiny a little on those that need it. OTOH, it would stand RfA squarely on its head. At present, we require a strong showing of support to promote; Proposed Admins would need only a showing of no opposition. Also, it is very susceptible to, let us say, "certain" users. Particularly the more recent, more creative kind. This is an interesting idea, though, that's for sure. -Splash^talk 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know that we currently require a "strong" showing of support - I believe a 25-0 RfA would pass right now. I think I understand your concern about "certian" users - but there must be a way to control for possible abuses. bd2412 T 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting idea. I don't think it'll make that much of a difference; of the thirteen nominations currently up, only two are unopposed. More interestingly, is removing the mandatory questions (which would be a side effect of this) a good idea? Kirill Lok s hin 02:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I would not do away with the mandatory questions. That's a rite of passage! Just the voting - we would still have the questions. bd2412 T 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah; I took the "names could be posted on a list" part to mean that this would be a simple listing. Kirill Lok s hin 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

After 2 edit conflects I agree with BD2412, I trust the B-crats decition, but RfA is becoming a popularity contest, users are getting 100 support votes easily, but RFA is also getting harder also, Moe Epsilon has had 5 failed RFA and Aranda56 has 6 failed RFAs and those two are excellent editors but with a weakness. --152.163.100.6 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, we generally want to have RFA be easy for users suitable to be admins and hard for the ones that aren't. Where exactly the dividing line is to be drawn is a rather subjective issue; what may be a minor concern for some people is a major disqualifying factor for others. Kirill Lok s hin 03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the Prod style RfA would make much difference as the RfAs rarely goes unopposed. It might increase chanses that some candidate unknown to the RfA regulars would slip unnoticed, despite some people in the wider community having valid concerns. I do not think this is a good thing. abakharev 03:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with the prod, because then the RfA would become quiet, and many things, including feedback would be diminished. It's a fair thing that increased responsibilty should be scrutinized.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to dredge up another old idea and throw it back on the table here (although it's been rejected several times before) = split admins between two levels (junior and senior or something like that) with the junior admins having lesser powers (rollback, time-limited blocks of anons only, deletions/undeletions in the article, template, and category spaces only, semi-protection, access to things only admins can see) and give those powers out through an easy process (like the above proposed prod clone); leave the major powers (deleting images and pages in the user and wikipedia space, blocking editors with accounts, permablocks, full protection) to the senior admins with a higher threshold (e.g. the one we have now for admins). People who do good work get some more power without a hassle, and they can be observed in the use of that power to determine when they are ready to handle even more. bd2412 T 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I think that "... article, template, and category spaces..." (emphasis mine) aren't as safe to work with as one might think; a number of recent incidents would likely have been even bloodier if multiple "levels" of adminship had played into it. Kirill Lok s hin 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The details are subject to change (i.e., I can see why you would want to take templates out of that equation). What is important is that a change is possible, and might prove beneficial - a setup of junior and senior (or regular and XXL, or whatever) admins would allow potential wielders of full admin powers to first be evaluated in their use of some admin powers. bd2412 T 04:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the template issue is really just a particularly extreme example. My concern is that a two-tier system will aggravate any disagreements between administrators, since some of the senior ones will inevitably try to pull rank on the junior ones. (I suppose that it's a somewhat broader issue of admin interaction rather than one tied to this specific proposal, so it may be that this isn't the best place to bring it up.) Kirill Lok s hin 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this as occasion to warm over an old suggestion of mine, with a slight modification: what about declaring that all "votes" cast before acceptance are "nomination" or "co-nominations" of the candidate, and that one can either nominate, or "vote", but not both? That'd deter the n-ary nomination phenom, without ruling it out outright; it'd ever-so-slightly encourage self-noms (we get plenty of bad self-noms already, but encouraging good ones can't hurt); it'd be a way to keep runaway situations like this in check. (The interpretation of noms vs. votes is I trust something we can leave our 'crat-corps to handle.) Alai 08:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, this is a discussion, not a vote - every person who makes a comment in support of a candidate's promotion, whether counted as a co-nom or a vote, should be taken into account when the 'crat is seeking to determine whether there is consensus in support of promotion. Better to just ban co-noms outright, and ban votes before the RfA is posted. bd2412 T 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's both a discussion and a vote, or at least, as much like a vote as anything on wikipedia is. (Certainly more like a vote than, for example, the arbcom elections.) I don't think this is really material to the above suggestion, though, as it doesn't change the value of the RFA as a discussion. I have no particular objection to prohibitting co-noms and pre-acceptance votes, but I don't see the argument that it's "better". It's a more restrictive measure to address the same issues, which I'd judge makes it more likely to be opposed as a proposal (by those fond of either, or as "instruction creep"), and requires implementation more likely to annoy people (when their co-noms and early votes are "struck out"), for no additional benefit. Alai 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA Reform and DFA (Archive 49)

My take here is that maybe if all RFA's are to have a "even start" that maybe the DFA process, which (in one of its incarnations) could be seen as a way to refine a candidacy and address issues, develop additional material, etc, prior to the formal RFA start would go against that? I'm not sure I agree with this "even start" idea, because if it is enforced there may be cases where there will be back channel dealings, and preparation of material off-wiki, etc... I've been a supporter of the idea of DFA being a precursor to RFA (although at this point it looks like a mostly failed idea, there have been several attempts to try it and none of them have really worked out well yet)... Am I right in reading that if this even start proposal goes forward it would kill DFA (as conferring an unfair advantage?) unless everyone did it? ++Lar: t/c 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's going to be a change preventing votes from before a nominatoin is posted to RfA. I think the system was self-correcting in CSCWEM's case. People saw a massive number of votes before the RfA was posted. They made inaccurate conclusions based on that, but CSCWEM saw the negative impacts and decided to withdraw the nomination. He showed a lot of class in so doing. It's an unusual one-off case. If this happened more frequently, then I could see an argument for changing the policy to disallow votes before posting on RfA. But, to change it based on one RfA alone seems...premature. --Durin 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If DFA were indeed a precusor to RFA, I'd see no problem with having both that and an "even start" to the RFA proper (were that felt necessary). Surely in that case DFA would simply in effect become a "central clearing house" for what happens on an ad hoc basis at present, largely on user talk pages: am I/are you/is s/he ready to become an admin, you've been here for ages/have lots of edits/are a shoo-in, are a bit new/might not have any [blah] edits/could face some opposition currently. Alai 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal to fix the gamed system (Archive 50)

Wow, that was a weekend with some crazy RfA action, no? Anyway, concerning this Khoikhoi business. If the allegations above are true (I have no way to verify, I don't know Turkish) then this represents an extremely serious gaming of the system, which was eventually successful. Worse is that this sets a worrying precedent. People are discussing what needs to be done in this case to fix this particular situation, and that is fine. But I think it would be clear that something needs to be changed or this can happen in every RfA, since as the situation stands, this will always be effective.

Now, of course, some people really do believe that this is a vote. And if it is, let's be clear: what Metb82 did, or is alledged to have done, is perfectly legitimate, and in fact, encouraged, in a democracy. You get your supporters' bodies into the poll booth, no matter what. Of course, I take this as an object lesson as to why voting is evil in these things. On the other hand, if this is about reaching or measuring consensus, then everyone who came here as a result of campaigning should be ignored, or at the least, should have their opinion multiplied by a very small number. Let me propose an idea about this: what if the policy is, if you ever get exhorted on your talk page to come and vote in an RfA before you vote, then your vote doesn't count. Positive or negative. This would make any campaigning counterproductive. I think most people find positive campaigning in RfA's at least somwhat distasteful, and I'm sure now everyone has a really bad taste in their mouth about negative campaigning. And in this current situation, there would have been no problem in the first place.

Of course, one counterargument is that an agent provacateur could go ahead and preemptively leave messages on the Talk pages of known supporters of a candidate asking them to support, thereby negating their votes, and this is a flaw. However, it seems to me that if the only people who would have supported your RfA are people who are widely known to be your supporters, then you don't have consensus in the first place.--Deville (Talk) 13:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There would be no way to enforce a policy that your vote does not count if you were requested to vote on a particular RfA. Even if you restricted it just to talk pages, you would make it the job of bureaucrats to go through every single edit made to any voter's talk page within the week the RfA was live, and probably for the week prior to it being live. You can't go just by what is currently on the talk page, as the exhortation could be deleted from the page. Further, you'd have to have multilingual bureaucrats able to translate whatever languages appear on talk pages. As if that's not bad enough, all of this is completely undermined by the ability of such people to go to IRC or private e-mail to campaign for/against an RfA. You'd have about as much success of this as preventing people from voting who have seen a campaign billboard. --Durin 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nod. Outlaw behaviours and you push them underground where they are harder to spot, not prevent them. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  - With that attitude we might as well give up outlawing murder, because we're not actually stopping murder, we're just making it happen more frequently when no witnesses are around. C'mon, what you're using is a silly argument and you know it. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    - Are you willing to volunteer to check every edit made for ~two weeks to every talk page of every voter on every RfA? I most definitely am not. I took a sampling of the first five voters on Turnstep and TigerShark's RfAs, and counted the number of edits to their talk pages from 14 March to 28 March, not including their own edits. The average number of edits to their talk pages was 39.8. From January to this past week, the average number of votes per RfA has been 60.62. The average number of RfAs per week has been 16.75. If you multiply this out, this gives you an idea of the number of edits that would need to be checked every week in order for bureaucrats to enforce this rule. The number? A whopping 40,412 edits per week that would need to be checked. In order to enforce this rule, the work load for bureaucrats would go up exponentially. In exchange, you would have no guarantee that contributors to RfA are not being contacted and asked to vote. Not to mention the fact that this could be VERY easily gamed. See the scenario outlined by Deville above. So far there's no answer to how to handle this shortcoming. --Durin 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      - This is true, clearly Bcrats cannot check all of this for every RfA. And I'm not saying they should. For example, I'm sure that now they don't click on every link in every support and oppose vote to check that the voters' claims are substantiated. But what one could imagine here is that there is a policy that such votes get ignored, and in the case where one person, or several people, discover this sort of negative campaigning is going on (as happened here) and bring it to the bureaucrats' attention, then there is a policy in place which tells the Bcrats what to do. As it stands now, what is the Bcrats policy? Khoikhoi removed himself from contention, but what would have happened if the vote had gone through? Would it come down to a strict percentage vote? Would obviously shilled-for votes be discounted or ignored? Who knows? It seems better that there be a policy. --Deville (Talk) 15:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  - To respond to Lar, yes, what you say is true. If people want to be infinitely sneaky they can find a way around this. However, I think a lot of people wouldn't go through such lengths in a scenario like this. Although there are exceptions, I think most editors to Wikipedia try to act in an ethical manner. I don't think most would sneak around in email and IRC to circumvent a policy that they knew about. I think in this case, most of the contributors probably didn't think they were doing anything wrong, and it's not clear to me that what they did actually contravened the letter of any previous policy. A policy which says the community frowns on this sort of behaviour to the point of ignoring votes culled in such a manner would stop all but the most egregious POV-pushers. In any case, I agree with you that it's better when people are above-board, but given that the negative campaigning was, AFAIK, technically legal in this case, what is the advantage of us knowing about it, if noone is going to do anything about it? --Deville (Talk) 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The problems of a representative democracy have been exhaustively discussed in many forums, and probably somewhere on wikipedia as well. There is no limit on the number of admins, and it's an almost irreversible transition, so I don't see that there is any competition. However, as long as any username can vote, then it is an election, and not a consensus, no matter the contrary intention. - Richardcavell 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to deal with this would be to make it so that the headings were "reasons to support" and "reasons to oppose", and make it so signatured comments could only occur in a comments section.--Urthogie 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How would this stop people coming to an RfA as a result of campaigning? --Durin 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Noone would campaign cus it wouldn't be a vote. It'd be a listing of reasons for and against.--Urthogie 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable solution, but one would need to be careful about what constituted new reasons so one doesn't just end up with "support per _". JoshuaZ 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thanx everybody for discussing this. I think what i did was not wrong, because as you could see on Khoikhoi's nomination, both the nominator Latinus and all of the voters that supported Khoikhoi were mostly in POV wars taking sides with him. Now what i dont understand is, why this isnt this considered as a worrying precedent because they all know the start time of the nomination so they have enough time to notify each other without being exposed before it starts. I think what i did could bring the nomination more equality if the people i sent messages to had time to vote.(Metb82 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

See among other issues WP:POINT if vote stacking in one direction is occuring, the proper thing to do is to aler other users and alert the buraeucrats, not to vote stack the other way. This is even assuming your statement is true. JoshuaZ 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal (Archive 50)

Most of the RfA/RfBs are non-controversial - they are either clearly fell or clearly succeeded. How about having a rule that the controversial RfAs should be closed by a collective decision of a plurality of bureaucrats? (Or either by an active bureaucrat, that have closed more than XX RfAs, or by plurality of the lesser active bureaucrats). That way we should eliminate the allegations that there exist "dormant bureaucrats" only interested in influencing controversial decisions concerning their friends? abakharev 22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be sufficiently well-established that in the 75-80% zone, there's a degree of discretion, and the traditional formula uttered during RfBs is to say there'd be consultation between BCs in such a case. Above I suggested trying to establish a similar "zone" for RfBs themselves. I'm not sure anything much more formal or elaborate than that is likely to be much additional help. For one thing, trying to define "controversial" is problematic if one tries to nail this down too tightly. Alai 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal on RfB. I do not see much difficulties in formal nailing down the "controversial" requests - we can just use the numerics (e.g. for RfAs Promotions with less than 83% of support and Falls with more than 72% of support; for RfBs All promotions (they are such a rare event anyway), Falls with more than 80% of support). abakharev 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the large number of candidates who had prior failed RfAs who later became promoted, I don't see the need to have additional instructions layered in for handling potentially controversial RfAs. If it fails, it fails. The nominee should take the lessons from the RfA and apply them as they see need to their behavior on Wikipedia and try again in the future. That's a positive process, not a negative one. --Durin 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the proposal is actually just a knee-jerk reactions on a controversial promotion a few days earlier. abakharev 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussions for Adminship (Archive 52)

We're trying to rewrite the proposal. Please see WT:DFA for more. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you weren't here before, that's a proposal to reform RfA. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the reform attempt was dead by now. There was a very insightful comment on this page a while ago, by NoSeptember [7]. To paraphrase, it said that the current RfA system is mostly fine, and if anything, changes to it will come gradually as the process evolves and issues show up. I wholehartedly agree with that. Suggestions for big overhauls did not gain much tractions so far, and I don't see a good motivation for trying. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We've been discussing on there. RfA isn't broken, we agree. It is good enough. But we can do better than good enough. And I haven't seen any changes to the RfA process in a long long time. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Adminship needs to be reviewed (Archive 55)

Hmmm, Amgine didn't make it, and I did spontaniously say (wisely or not) that "if THIS nomination fails, RFA should be shut down", or words to that effect. Well, that was spur of the moment, this is now. I won't push it if you won't! ;-) (Though I reserve the right to still yell words to that effect in future, if there's no improvement)

Now, the thing is, it's very nice to have procedures and percentages and bells and whistles. Rube Goldberg could make a living out of it! :)

But at the end of the day, if those percentages and procedures and bells and whistles and whatnot don't actually lead to logical results, that needs fixing. (Come ON! If you can do OTRS, being an admin on wikipedia is a walk in the park by comparison).

I don't understand why people say we should give more power to office either. Do we WANT the foundation to take control of our wiki? Other wikis are independant, but are we such wusses that en.wikipedia is the only wikimedia wiki that can't figure out what's good for itself on its own?

I think yes, possibly we are such wusses, and should be ashamed.

Surely not! +sj +

In conclusion: perhaps "we should shut down Requests for Adminiship" was a spur of the moment thing to say, so I'm not going to push that too hard yet. BUT we should certainly review and discuss our current RFA setup, because we just screwed up in a fairly obvious and visible fashion.

Kim Bruning 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

ps. I'm not so worried about Amgine himself. He can take a beating, he's a grownup :-P It's just the fact that rfa managed to get it so wrong!

It would seem doing OTRS *isn't* enough to become an admin, since the RfA failed. The only way doing OTRS could be considered enough would be if there was concensus to that effect - there wasn't. RfA worked as designed in this case. --Tango 22:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Only the most trusted people are given OTRS access, and that trust is more than enough to be given admin abilities. Therefore RFA failed, quite miserably, in this case.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

These are different tasks, however. The environments of replying to OTRS mail and that of acting as a wiki-administrator are likewise different. +sj + 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Like Sean Black said as well, I've had both admin and OTRS access, and admin is definately a lot easier, (the skills needed to be an admin are in fact a subset of those required for OTRS). In conclusion: Somehow people came to the wrong consensus. Kim Bruning 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also dealt with daily routine, complications, and conflicts both as an admin and on OTRS. I agree that doing administrative/janitorial work is generally easier; but it requires different skills, not a subset of those needed for OTRS responses. They are simply separate. Many people will be good at both; but that is not a reason for one to automatically qualify someone for the other (cf. Alphax as well). And to reply to Sean Black, while people responding to OTRS mail are trusted, I certainly wouldn't say that this is "the set of 'most trusted people'" among Wikipedians. It is simply a subset of the many trusted Wikipedians who would be good at, and have time for, such work. +sj + 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is whose trust. If the community doesn't have trust, it won't give admin abilities. If only the Foundation has trust, then the Foundation has to give admin abilities themselves. You can't put a person to an RFA vote and say "you mustn't oppose - he's trusted anyway" -- grm_wnr Esc 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What procedure is used to award OTRS access? Perhaps we could incorporate elements in the RfA. -Will Beback 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically, someone asks one of the contacts (currently, either myself or sannse, as listed on m:OTRS). We decide whether we need any new personnel and try to judge carefully, asking around and delaying decisions where necessary; it is not much of a procedure and does not scale, but has been on the whole reasonably successful. (Not only does Amgine have access to the regular messages, he also answers the "urgent" tickets, which is currently about 10 people who are particularly good with sticky situations.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If the foundation is so confident that Amgine can be trusted, why go through RfA at all? There is certainly precedent for people being promoted without RfA, BradPatrick for example. jaco♫plane 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Brad's situation (and that of any future legal counsel) is special, and shouldn't be considered a precedent for normal community members. +sj + 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well not "you mustn't oppose", but more like this person ALREADY has been granted higher levels of access and trust.

So rephrasing: it's more like "This guy even does OTRS, and people are insanely happy with how he's doing there. How on earth is it possible that en.wikipedia suddenly thinks he's too st00pid to even handle a simple admin bit?"

In short: I'm one flabbergasted dude here! Kim Bruning 23:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See kusma's comments below, and mine above. Handling OTRS does not automatically make someone a good admin; and there were valid concerns. You don't think those concerns should have affected anything, all things considered, and neither do I (hence our votes in the RfA and your strong position), but I don't see any reason to be quite so flabbergasted. AzaToth's RfA was a clearer example of what needs fixing. +sj + 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion is that the community does not like to see things like wheel warring and unilateral deletion of userboxes in a prospective admin's recent past. I guess OTRS handling just doesn't matter as much to most people. Also, remember OTRS is out there where nobody can see it (I hazard the guess many don't even know what it means), while diffs from Wikinews are readily available. Also, be careful: There's no such thing as a "wrong" consensus. There's just consensus. Consensus for the wrong reasons maybe. Or consensus among the wrong people. Or consensus for a decision you don't agree with. But consensus. All you can hope for is to educate the voters that OTRS is a BIG qualification for adminship, but I guess that's pretty hopeless. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If we are failing to educate the voters on this page, then that's a problem. We could hope to educate people better, we could bar people from voting until they prove they are somehow sufficiently educated, or we could use a system that does not require voting at all. :-( The options seem somewhat bleak. I wonder if people have better ideas? Kim Bruning 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to think that if there was just discussion it would be different. There would still be uneducated participants and people placing comments based on tenths of a percentage of edit count distribution just like we have now. RfA should be about can we trust an editor to not abuse the tools, but instead we get all kinds of people that think edit count is critical. Just look through RfA/Standards and it's quite disheartening. - Taxman ^Talk 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To springboard off of Kim's comment and soapbox for a minute: while there seemed to be some valid concerns about Amigne's RfA, there is a common problem that RfAs seem to rarely work for the more unique cases. For example, AzaToth's RfA failed to reach consensus despite his definite needs for the tools and everyone agreeing that he wasn't going to misuse them. Similarly, Tawker's RfA was barely successful. In both these cases the admins were people who didn't fit the cookie cutter mold of an admin and were treated poorly as a result. Other similar problems abound: Master of Puppets was accused of being argumentative even though one can routinely find far more argumentative comments by admins on WP:ANI. A further data point to the brokeness of the system is my own RfA; there is no good reason to justify my having the fourth most supported RfA ever. The two possible explanations for that level of support are that 1) I've really been as incredibly helpful as some of the supporters seem to think or 2) Blnguyen concern's that I'm overly political have some validity. There is something wrong when a political hack who has been involved in a multitude of conflicts and only one Wiki for about 3 months gets one of the highest support totals in Wikipedia history while a template wizard like AzaToth doesn't get adminship. (Note that I'm not saying that I shouldn't have been made an admin, I wouldn't have accepted the nom if i thought I shouldn't be, but I do think that my overwhelming support may be another symptom of the problems with the process). The way I see it(I know I've said this before but I'll say it again because I think it is important) the key issues are 1) Will the project benefit from the user having admin tools? 2) Do we know that the user won't abuse those tools? 3) Do we know that the user has the competence and experience to correctly use the tools?" If the answer to all three is "yes" then they should have the tools. It isn't much more complicated than that. JoshuaZ 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that these issues are far more important than the number of edits or their distribution on different namespaces or whatever common oppose reasons are. In the case of Amgine, though, many people apparently thought the answers were "yes, no, yes" due to the Wikinews incidents, and I think it was that more than the low edit count etc. that made Amgine's nomination fail. So I think AzaToth is a better example for the "brokenness" of the system than Amgine. Kusma (討論) 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of users is only increasing so I don't find it odd that RFAs are getting more votes over time, as long as people do not only vote on those where they actually know/have interacted with the person it will happen. I thought you got a high number of support votes, but I am not sure that is a sign that the system is broken. There is a problem with the system if people that are not qualified or will abuse the tools are promoted and people that have a need for them and will use them responsibly are not promoted.

I can only speak for myself on Amgine, but I opposed because of the wikinews blocking wheel war. It happened not even a month ago and he made (imo) vindictive blocks, reblocked someone 4 times, and continued to use admin powers when blocked. These are things that should not be done, even if they were not against wikinews policy (at the time, it mentioned unblocking more than 3 times in 24 hours, but not reblocking). If the foundation wants/needs him to have the sysop bit I'm sure they can find a steward to do it, but I do not see this case as a failure of RFA as while he is qualified I am not sure of his judgment. Kotepho 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not too late to help us out and write a decent WP:DFA proposal :P — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a problem with the RFA process, it's a problem with the community (the RFA community in particular - call it RFA culture if you wish). Of course, the process has some influence on the culture, but it boils down to the following:

RFA asks the community if someone should be an admin
In this case, too large a part of the community said no

How can this be adressed? Well, we could discount notvotes that don't meet some rule (which is always dangerous and instruction-creepy). We could lower the bar at which an RFA is considered successful (might work for this case, but there's got to be a border somewhere, so this doesn't really help in general, at least not for cases of this kind). Or we could not ask the community at all (which is already an option in special cases and could have been in this one). So, Kim, I can see where you're coming from, but I think you're asking the wrong questions. Any RFA process will give undesirable results if there's somthing about the candidate a part of the community doesn't like. To JoshuaZ: Your three points in the end certainly do make sense. But they're also not so rock hard as to be completely non-trivial to interpret, which just ends us with a process where we poll the community, and we have that already. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, I agree, yeah. But really, we don't need a hard and fast "this is a valid vote, this isn't.", we just need bureaucrats to judge the arguments, not the number. Unfortunately, that isn't happening.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you just make a blanket generalization like that? I saw the RFA too, and some very respected Wikipedians were concerned about the Wikinews incident, so it isn't an argument you can just discard like that. Bureaucrats have the hardest job on Wikipedia, as any judgment call they make is going to cause some sort of controversy. In this case, they erred on the side of caution after listening to both sides, so I can't blame them for the decision they took, even though I supported. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking more generally. Idiotic crap is happening on a whole bunch of RFAs, not just Amgine's.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A number of people raised serious concerns regarding Amgine. In particular two different RfArs at Wikinews that showed Amgine to have deleted templates out of process and engaged in wheel warring. These are very serious concerns that led to a number of people voting oppose, and for good reason. That Amgine happens to answer mail and performs other tasks requiring trust does not automatically vacate these concerns. RfA did not fail in this case. For the people that voted oppose, it is perhaps some relief that a nominee who has a history of wheel warring and out of process deletions on another wiki project did not gain administrator privileges here. Wheel warring and out of process deletions has been a major factor in a number of very heated debates on Wikipedia in the last six months. Having a new admin with a history of precisely those problems is something that obviously several people were not too keen about. Somebody, at some point, has to be the first person to note problems with an individual who was previously otherwise considered trustable beyond question. Of the wiki projects in this case, Wikipedia happens to have been the first. That doesn't make the RfA process wrong. In fact, rather the opposite. --Durin 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Typically you are very observant, so I always pay attention. Just to check though, did you notice that Eloquence ("the jimbo of wikinews") came forward in at least one of those RFArs, and politely requested/suggested/reccomended to drop it?

Amgine is a very old hand at handeling wikis, so I wonder what's up now. We should certainly ask Eloquence to come in and take a look at your statements. Kim Bruning 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

“

With all due respect to everyone involved, including Ral315, who has been extremely helpful throughout this ordeal, I would like to suggest that arbitration be avoided in this instance, and that we instead follow the doctrine of Forgive and Forget in this case. My suggestion is, that if all parties agree, no further blocks in response to the disputed behavior will be implemented for the time being (future infractions can of course be dealt with as usual), and all discussion will focus on Wikinews talk:Blocking policy. The goal is that we depersonalize the discussion, and instead of spending another few weeks wiki-lawyering, we try to figure out what exactly went wrong, and how we can prevent situations like this from arising in the future. I have made some specific suggestions on the policy talk page and tentatively edited the policy itself, and would appreciate feedback on these.

”

My view of his view is "stuff went wrong, trying to punish people over it doesn't help anything, lets just fix it." Just saying that it should be dropped, without the context, could be read to mean "this is trivial" or "nothing went wrong here." Kotepho 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Historicaly OTRS is not equal to adminship. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax 2.Geni 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me: Why didn't the community from it's grave mistake in that RFA?--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Becuase there are a large number of high quality zero baggage candidates around. Thus those with baggage are going to have a much harder time. People who chose to get involved in wikipolitics before running for adminship are going to have a harder time.Geni 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

By that reasoning, some of the people most suited for admin are those least likely to get it! Kim Bruning 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. A skilled potential admin will figure out how the community works.Geni 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But someone who has already figured it out and is acting like an admin should, would not then get admin. Kim Bruning 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because "the community" is not necessarily of your (or my) opinion as to what constitutes a mistake. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for another (possibly even heavier, I mean we're talking shell access here) example. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All that proves is that there's something wrong with "the community". Alphax should be an admin, and those who think otherwise are simply wrong.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An anti userbox admin who clearly doesn't think much of policy? We have enough trouble with the current lot.Geni 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That statement clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Alphax made anti-userbox and anti policy staments around the time of his RFA. Admins who combien those two qualities have a tendancy to desturbe the peace.Geni 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blah, whatever. This argument is silly and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious how many people simply saw that some outside incidents occurred without looking into it for themselves. The culture of Wikinews is somewhat different (I say this having spent more time there recently—it's quieter and smaller than this project, and no one expects me to do anything other than copyedit). It's a small community with little over a dozen core contributors. Amgine's userbox case was its arbitration committee's very first case, and the incident involved may not have even made it past an unspectacular RfC here. Was it a bold move that several people disagreed with? Well, sure. But it nipped the userbox problem in the bud. Would the same outcome have come out some other way? I can't say. Does he go around deleting things on Wikinews willy-nilly? He does not. This is not a pattern. It was a perhaps extreme approach to solving a problem. And as far as I can tell it worked.

The blocking incident also needs to be looked at on its own. It's one incident that came to a head after... well, a long history. It's not incomparable to the sort of blocks and unblocks that happen here without too much notice, where admins disagree. Is it part of a pattern of unreasoned, inflammatory action? It isn't; Amgine is usually ridiculously cool-headed. His actions are not without disagreement, but on the whole he is an extrememly valued and respected contributor there.

More importantly—this is a user with a long history of positive work, and where the only areas in which anyone could be concerned, he has no desire to engage in on this project, and has stated his intent not to involve himself in them. Fewer edits here than your usual candidate, but his familiarity with the project and use for the technical abilities were vouched for by several longstanding and reputable users. (Yes, myself, but I'm not that arrogant; others such as Essjay and Danny who have had a great deal of experience working with him also spoke up for him.) I think it would have been a positive thing for en.wikipedia for Amgine to be an admin, or I would not have made the nomination. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see Amgine promotoed, but at the moment I don't feel like that much of a rogue bureaucrat :(. I think that the community didn't understand the underlying circumstances (*cough*) because they weren't given a chance to (or didn't want to?) BTW, I personally don't have much background, but did Amgine perhaps get caught up in a similar mess as Kelly Martin? Another user I respect that got caught up in this ridiculous userbox deal. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 00:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes are a slightly unique case. In past conflicts it hasn't really mattered very much how many admins are on each "side". This time due to the rather nasty way the battle has been fourt it does.Geni 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Ilyanep, You might want that cough looked at! I think a review of Requests for Adminship could certainly help with a Discussions for Adminship design. Kim Bruning 02:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I definately hope so :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this is why requests for adminship needs review. I'm pretty darn certain about Amgine, since I've had the chance to observe him for quite a long time, and know for sure that he is a decent admin (note: IS, on other wikis at least ).

So apparently people are failing to take into account factors that show that people can be a decent admin, and instead, are taking into account factors that are not relevant to a person being a decent admin.

Or perhaps they're simply not reading far enough. Gosh knows it happens to me too, I used to review people's entire edit histories and interrogate them at length. (*sigh* yet another side effect of editcountitis... how can you expect a person to review 2000+ edits? )

The reason I'm focussing on the Amgine case is because Amgine is a very helpful and well known person. So many people know (or think they know) all about him. Especially at the foundation level. So we can check and doublecheck everything, and do a thorough review to figure out what happened.

Hypothetically we might even find nothing wrong! But with the RFA result being so different from the predicted outcome, I think that would be too much to hope for. On the other hand, finding things that are wrong will help us fix things :-)

Kim Bruning 02:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is very simple. Admins are not just editors with a few extra features availible any more.Geni 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explicate what additional requirements there are for admins? Or link to them? Formally it looks like admins are users with 1500+ edits and 3months+ experience. Kim Bruning 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your list of requirements is pretty much correct. The only thing it misses is "little bagage".

(ps. The thing is, I haven't actually seen a consensus on additional responsibilities or requirements explicitly stated anywhere. Maybe I've missed them. If not, then at the least we'll come up with a new more accurate description of what an admin is and does) Kim Bruning 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We should in fact do so. Because I think we're holding people up to an informal unwritten standard which isn't usually a very good thing. It can be flexible, but people should know the range. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional responsibilities? None. Responsibilities suggest on some level accountability. In that case the only responsibility admins have is not to screw up really big time. Additional abilities? The ability to use their admin powers in a conflict and not be instantly jumped on by all the other admins. The ability more and more to use their powers in situations that require subjective judgements. The ability to use the deference people generally have towards admins instead of having to make a show of not doing so.

That's not good :( (in reply to Geni). Sometimes I wonder if I would even pass if I ran again. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You got 70% in the arbcom elections so I doubt you would have any problems passing.Geni 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see why this is so different from the predicted outcome -- most of things that are to this user's credit are effectively invisible to most contributors at the English Wikipedia. On the whole I think that nominees should be evaluated mostly on their contribution history here, so I'm not sure that the failure of this RfA is really a sign of systemic problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That would depend on unvoiced assumptions about what an administrator is and what being an administrator entails. Apparently we hold very different definitions.

My definition is simply: "An administrator is anyone who can be trusted not to destroy the wiki".

In fact, I would prefer the responsibility-set to be renamed to something more innocious like "advanced editing licence" or something, which is basically what it is. (In the same way, you are granted a drivers licence after you have shown that you can drive relatively safely.)

The requirement that follows from that is that it needs to be adequately shown (or known) that indeed they will do more good than harm, on balance.

That is my only requirement.

Apparently you have a very different view of adminship! Would you care to elucidate? :-) Kim Bruning 10:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should call admins executioner. No wait, I meant executor. NoSeptember ^talk 11:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have about the same requirement, and the people who voted in opposition appeared to have the same thing in mind as well. Although I might point out one key difference -- I'm more interested in whether people can be trusted not to destroy the encyclopedia. That, after all, is the point. This of course makes me much less interested in someone's experience on other wikis.

In light of that, Amgine simply didn't have a lot of experience to point to in demonstrating that he would do more good than harm. Unfortunately, nobody can examine his work for OTRS, and most of his visible work has been concentrated at Wikinews. The community apparently felt that his experience at Wikinews was not especially convincing, which is perhaps sensible given that Wikinews has a different copyright scheme and different core content policies. Experience there may not be very useful. Moreover his judgment regarding use of admin tools has been brought into question there. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The above debate can be condensed thus: Amgine should have been promoted and wasn't, ergot the process is bad, and all who opposed him are idiots. I opposed him, because he has very few edits here, on the English Wikipedia, and has recently wheel warred on another project. I'm not sure I'm too happy at the implication that I'm an idiot or my opinion is invalid. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Foundation own this website, and if they want to give him the sysop bit they should go right ahead. What actually happened was that the community was asked, "do you want to promote him?" and we said no (or not enough of us said yes). I don't care what goes on behind the scenes, I don't care what's said on IRC, he didn't meet the standards as far as I and 32 other editors were concerned. --kingboyk 11:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Blame the process, not the people." I wonder what manual that's from again? :)

Hmmm, in any case, there's something not quite right with the process, if that's all you know about Amgine :) .

Please define which standards and requirements apply (this request has been made several times in this thread, and hasn't really been answered properly, so far).

Finally , while the foundation folks are all very nice people, and I really enjoy cooperating with them, there's a whole mountain of reasons why I'd rather not have them having a too large a say in en.wikipedia. (In fact, most wikis operate practically independantly, why should en.wikipedia need babysitting?) Kim Bruning 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

More on Amgine and RfA

Certain points have been raised which I would like to respond to. I would also like to expand on my comments above regarding Amgine's nomination.

Mindspillage noted that Amgine used an extreme approach on Wikinews and that it worked. This certainly shows that Amgine was capable of making significant decisions where little precedent existed on that project. However, taking an extreme approach here on Wikipedia would very likely lead to very severe problems. Would Amgine have the ability to understand when to use extreme approaches? Given that Amgine engaged in wheel warring, it's easy to see why some editors would have very reasonable, rational concerns about whether Amgine could exercise that ability accurately here.

While certainly some members of the RfA community does have a habit of glossing over details, it is a completely reasonable conclusion to feel that Amgine is not well suited to being an admin on Wikipedia. Perhaps he is ideally suited to being an admin on smaller projects, but not on larger projects. Being an admin on other wiki projects certainly makes a person more qualified to be an admin on Wikipedia, but it is far from being enough experience and ability to qualify here. Saying you know how to drive a Swatch car does not make you significantly qualified to drive a Formula One car. It is reasonable for users to look at Amgine's contributions here, on Wikipedia, in somewhat of an isolation from contributions elsewhere; our culture here at Wikipedia is decidedly different than that at Wikinews for example. How well does Amgine understand the culture here? Does he understand it well enough to know the grave impacts that wheel warring and out of process deletions have here? It's a reasonable question. I don't feel people should knee-jerk and say "Hey, less than 1500...bzzt...you're outta here!". But, it is entirely reasonable to look at the sum of his contributions here on Wikipedia and question whether he has the experience and exposure to effectively be an administrator here. Being an administrator here is not the same as being an administrator at Wikinews.

Wikipedia is the largest wiki project in the world. It dwarfs almost all other wiki projects by an order of magnitude or more. Amgine's wheel warring and out of process deletions might not be a big deal on other projects, but if such behavior was to happen here, there would be hell to pay. It's simply not acceptable behavior here and there has been very significant problems over the last few months from precisely that behavior. On a smaller wiki project, it can be swept under the rug in favor of moving the project forward. Here at Wikipedia, there's too many people for an approach like that to effectively work. That's an issue of scale, not an issue of people. What works in small communities does not work in large ones and vice versa. "Would Amgine engage in such behavior here?" is really the crucial question. The community's response to his RfA seems to indicate that too many people are concerned about this issue to, at this time, allow Amgine to become an administrator here and definitively answer that question.

In answering question 1 on his RfA, Amgine noted a desire to address bias in articles. This seems rather innocuous on first read. But, that statement points to one of the most contentious problems in Wikipedia; bias in articles. Bias in articles has been a veritable hatchery of all sorts of heated debates, RfCs, and RfArs. Amgine is walking into one of the biggest problem areas while having a history of wheel warring and out of process deletions. This did not bode well for this candidate.

I understand there are a number of people who feel very strongly in favor of Amgine. Some of these people are very experienced here. However, to take this situation with a potentially problematic nominee and expand it into a condemnation of RfA, perhaps even going so far as to shut RfA down, is, to borrow Mindspillage's words from another context, an extreme approach. RfA did it's job here, and did it well. You might disagree with the decision, but the opposition to this candidate was soundly based in rational reasons. Yes, it was a minority opinion, but that minority was strong enough to prevent consensus being in favor of Amgine having adminsitrator privileges here at this time. --Durin 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To condense that entire text above, it was never made clear why Amgine should be an admin on en.wikipeda on time to do any good, either that, or it was ignored.

I know he's trustworthy. Many other people know too.

It's one thing to deal with a deletion or two, it's another thing entirely to be trusted to deal with entire wikis at once, or with jouralists or conferences.

I've had no trouble delegating responsibilities to him myself either.

I'm not sure what's wrong, or why. But you're not getting away with "everything is ok". There's a lot more to know about Amgine, for instance! Why wasn't this information taken into account?

In any case, I am utterly convinced that Amgine is a very very clearcut case of someone who seriously should have had no trouble whatsoever becoming an administrator on en.wikipedia, and yet failed at it.

Please don't argue that perhaps this shouldn't be the case, it's been quite solidly established elsewhere that he is capable of working on wikis. Try to figure out why this RFA did not pass instead. Kim Bruning 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed Durin's point. He didn't say that "it wasn't made clear" why Amgine should be admin. Rather, he said that valid reasons were brought to light why he should not be admin. If you understand that point, then "why this RfA did not pass" is easy to understand. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So everything I said above is bunk, and anyone who voted in opposition to Amgine was way out in left field? Kim, I thoroughly respect you but you've got a long, long road to hoe to support that sort of position on this RfA. I do not, based on the evidence available at this time, feel in any way that Amgine should have clearly and easily passed RfA. In fact, rather the contrary. I think you're making a very presumptive statement by asserting that he should have passed and therefore it's all RfA's fault. --Durin 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because it wasn't made clear enough exactly how qualified Amgine is? Most of the reasons for being qualified are not visible on this wiki, so it would have been good to point them out in more detail. The original nomination statement by Tawker just said "lots of experience" but didn't go into much details, so the only links provided for other people to check were his contributions here (which were not enough by the usual standards). Information about the recent wheel warring incident was found out later, and then opposition based on that. I would say bad timing (too soon after incident) and an insufficient nomination statement (Mindspillage's was a lot better, but also did not mention the incidents at Wikinews and did not go into detail on the "many smaller wikis" on which Amgine works, nor made clear the amount of trust put into Amgine with OTRS - all these foundation or meta issues are unknown to many people here) were part of the reason that this RfA did not pass. Kusma (討論) 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To respond seeing Durin's comment in a different light, do you think that because he took one approach in one community that he will take that same approach in other contexts? You could have reason to worry, but the assumption that is necessarily the case is a fallacious one, and one not supported by actual events; on the contrary, I've usually found his responses to be appropriate to the contexts in which they were made. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As I noted, the only way to truly answer that question was to give him the tools, and the community was not comfortable with that prospect. I didn't make a case that it would necessarily happen. I made a case that people were concerned about it, and they were. --Durin 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"The problem is simple"

Geni says that "the problem is simple. Admins are not just editors with a few extra responsibilities anymore". However, that's not really true. Admins are the same, but the people determining who gets adminship are fumbling rather badly. On your average RFA, there's tons of nonsense about numbers, and very little about actual qualifications. That's the problem. Now how do we fix it?--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Really what cases are you argueing got the wrong result due to numbers? In any case the numbers thing is largly due the the number of people applying. Edit count and numrical patterns is about the only thing people have time to check.Geni 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to properly evaluate a candidate, then you shouldn't be commenting on that nomination.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Have fun trying to inforce that one. My personal stardard is I only consider voteing if I heard of them before voteing starts.Geni 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Voting for somebody only because that person has 100% edit summary usage, 2500 edit out of which 10% are in project namespace, is silly. On the other hand, using the numbers to shoot down candidates is, in my view, acceptable. So, numbers are necessary but not sufficient. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Srikeit removed the picture from his signature on May 5, but still got this oppose vote today. Tintin (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn has been voteing oppose on everyone.Geni 04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be unpopular, but the reality is that adminship isn't a small deal anymore. People vote support because they have no reason to oppose, like codified on Raul's Laws; however, once a reason to oppose is found, many editors do not feel comfortable supporting the candidate. Why is that? Because promoting a bad candidate and having to go through a desysoping procedure is a three-ring circus, and often occurs with wheel wars, block wars and other assorted fireworks that often culminate in a spectacular manner. Editors don't want to have to go through all the carnage, so they are now extra cautious in choosing who to promote. Anyone with a minor chink in their armor fails nowadays for this reason. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've tightened up my requirements since I became an admin, not because I want to prevent other people from being promoted - on the contrary, I can see we still need more recruits and with the growth of the site we're likely to need a constant flow of new admins for some time yet. No, it's simply because I've learnt that adminship is quite a big deal in many ways. I can deny people the right to edit, I can edit a front page that gets thousands of hits a day, I'm asked to intervene in all sorts of disputes and problems. There's nothing I do which can't be undone, of course, but I realise that it's actually quite a tough job and you have to be damn sure you know the policies because there's a truck load of people out there waiting to wave "the rulebook" at you. --kingboyk 11:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Ah, I recall some psychological paper on faulty risk-averse human behaviour.

As a stratagy, a naive person will often select the option with the lowest absolute risk, rather than the option with the highest average gain. This is an extremely suboptimal stratagy in many cases! (A hypothetical evolutionary basis for this behaviour is beyond the scope of this edit)

Example (names left out to protect the guilty^Winnocent) :

*A person who has done 1800 page moves and spelling corrections gets promoted.

* A creative person who has done over 10000 solid contributions and has occaisionally even actually stood up and fought for what's right... does not get promoted. ⁽¹⁾

Kim Bruning 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(1)In one example, the most cited reason was "this person is too controversial". To forestall objections: in the case examined, on close inspection, all of the candidates actions appeared to be correct. Also, all of the people who were interviewed actually agreed that in fact all actions taken by the candidate were in fact correct (Especially taking into account the level of experience at the time). This was one of the last times (mid-2005) that I'm aware of that such a thorough background check was done for RFA.

As I mentioned in the thread at WP:BN, it was a mistake for Amgine's supporters not to anticipate that RfArs would be brought up. You need to explain these situations ahead of time. By the time the compromise offers were made, most people had already voted and moved on. This RfA did not fail by all that much, handled differently, the outcome may have been different. Of course that is easy to say in retrospect ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 11:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's an intelligent, pragmatic, tactical approach. I'll keep it in mind!

Looking at RFA iself: Can we devise ways to mitigate the need for such tactical methods? Kim Bruning 11:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tactical methods are a part of any effort to convince a community to support you. Even just answering the questions well is a tactic we use to garner support. Look at how many oppose votes Silsor got based on the perception that his answer to question 1 was flippant. Like anything else, you got to sell an RfA candidate, especially if there is any "baggage". This isn't a small community where everyone knows everyone anymore. RfA ain't broke, you just have to respect it for what it is, and that means making a good argument for your side if you want to win. NoSeptember ^talk 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is perhaps why some think something's broken. If the process requires tactics, planning, and political skill, then the result is a big deal. Go up two or three threads and you'll see NoSeptember and I discussing this very point, another aspect of it anyway. Maybe the result IS a big deal and should be. But I'd rather pick good candidates, not politically astute ones. On the other hand, maybe political astuteness is required. Heck, I believe I've actually argued that political astuteness is necessary... Kelly Martin's userbox deletions were perhaps not politically astute (regardless of whether the long term result was good for the project in your view or not...) Bog, who knows. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps politically astute candidates will be astute enough to know how to not get involved in wheel wars, and know how to deal with smart trolls and vandals. If you're not astute, but still qualified, you need to find a good nominator who will help you get through the RfA system. NoSeptember ^talk 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps that is not the kind of person I would want to see walking around as an admin on wikipedia. Personally, I'm looking for people who are willing and able to do the nescessary work. I'm not looking for people who shirk their responsibilites because it is "not politically astute" Kim Bruning 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is shirking due to political astuteness? We need all types of admins, and should let each focus on what they do well. Some admins appear to be so willing to do the necessary work that they don't think twice about overruling other admins without discussion. Some of these could use more astuteness ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"There's nothing I do which can't be undone" --Kingboyk

In a way, that's not actually true. The changes we make on the wiki can be reversed, but the changes that happen in people's heads are harder to erase. Adminship is not just a bit, it's a sign that the person has been awarded the trust of the community. So if you make a mistake as an admin, you're making that mistake not just on your own behalf, but on behalf of the whole community. Ben Aveling 12:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, indeed, that reinforces my argument that adminship is something of a big deal :) --kingboyk 12:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It was supposed to. Ben Aveling 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's broken. As an admin, you still make decision on behalf of yourself. If you believe people are starting to view it differently in your case, please relinquish your adminship bit before you (unintentionally) become a threat to the community.

The Adminship bit is useful for 3 categories of people:

Featured Article Writers. (The people actually writing the encyclopedia! )
Janitors. (people who mop up the trash)
Coordinators (people who try to keep people from whacking each others heads in, and who gently encourage them to cooperate instead)

None of these categories of people (need to) act on the behalf of any community. We shouldn't expect or require them to do so either. (they do of course do work that is useful to the community. And they should of course be on thier best behaviour. But it would be unfair to demand that they act as a kind of spokespeople) Kim Bruning 12:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually things are clear cut, the will of the community is expressed in policy, and only needs to be enacted. But sometimes, it's not clear. Then we need to make our own best guess about the common will, decide if we act, or if we post to a noticeboard, or whatever. It's not about being a spokesperson, altough each of us does that everytime we (for eg) vandal-tag a users page. It applies to everyone any time they do something that expresses their understanding of 'this is how it is here'. Not just admins. But the word of an admin carries more weight, not because they have the bit flipped, but because of how the bit is flipped. The process of being voted on is an expression of the communities faith in that person. So even if 'we know better', even if we know that the community is wrong and the person is fit to serve, the onus should be on us to defend the person and educate the community, not just have some easy way to override them. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the solution?

I don't see a major problem with RFA - it gets the easy ones right, and it gets a bit random on the borderline cases. Well, fair enough. Rather than saying "there's something wrong with RFA because...", I'd like to hear someone say "RFA would be better if..." Regards, Ben Aveling 12:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Define easy. Define borderline. In my perspective a *lot* of borderline cases are passing when they shouldn't, and a number of easy cases have failed. As to "RFA would be better if": please check Ilyaneps comments, he could use some help! :-) Kim Bruning 12:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There's always going to be some false positives and some false negatives. The easiest way to reduce the number of get rid of false positives is to raise the bar, but that increases the number of false negatives. For deletions, we have deletion review. Maybe it's time for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship review? I don't think the above case is as clear cut as some people do, but if a lot of people have voted on dud information, it might be good to have some formal process that can relist an RFA and/or discount/allow contested votes. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a separate RfA 3-6 months later have the same effect? Kimchi.sg 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly for 2 reasons. One, it adds a delay. Two, having a review board say 'this argument is wrong' clears the air - we've all seen things dragged up from the distant past that shouldn't have been. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC). PS: I basically do agree with you. I don't see that the current process is broken and I'm far from ready to vote for a review board, even though I've suggested it. I'm just thinking out loud about options we have.

I was basically of roughly the same opinion as you are (though I'll admint I did have some suspicions), right up until the Amgine RFA. Something is definately not right. Kim Bruning 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The solution is WP:AGF

I know there is some perplexity over Amgine's RfA failing, as well as some perplexity over vote switching. Speaking as a person who switched from “oppose” to “support,” on the Amgine RfA, I believe the process ‘’’did’’’ work. Consensus was not reached because of concerns over wheel warring. I know the it was my main concern, once I understood the user’s commitment and ability had been demonstrated in a way other than edit count. If my count was right, 17 oppose votes were for wheel warring or the “trouble at Wikinews”. Most of the rest were for low edit count. If those users who opposed on wheel warring had not voted either way, he would have passed with the support he had.

What convinced me to reconsider my oppose was the support of user’s like Antandrus, Tawker, Mindspillage and Titoxd (WP:AGF). I’ve seen them at work and respect them. I re-examined because I felt I must have missed something. I’d never heard of OTRS before this AfR and had to look it up. I suspect many people did not see that Amgine‘s edit count was more than made up for by OTRS, and that the ability and commitment were there. The message from Mindspillage’s nom statement sank in after a while. I switched my vote out of trust for the judgment of the supporters and in hope that the wheel warring was an aberration. I felt that if it did recur, then it could be dealt with. (With thousands of admins and over a million users, the disputes and infighting are minimal, and a process is in place to deal with it.)

NoSeptember was correct about Amgine ‘s supporters not anticipating the problem with the AfAr coming up, and that making a good argument is crucial. (I think Mindspillage did make a good argument, but it did not sink in for the people who opposed for low edit count. Maybe it was too good and should have been shorter. Or are people just looking at the contribs page and voting by rote?)

The scary thing is that the advantage may eventually go to the candidate that is capable of tackling RfA tactically. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a collection of people-- and politics is the process by which people arbitrate decisions. Assuming AfR‘s are spontaneous affairs-- that there is no formal campaign management pro or con, then we must trust to consensus.

Hopefully, Amgine will reapply after a while and win more support. The wheel warring will be in the past, and he’ll have had a chance to prove his ability. Is it tactical to advise boosting his edit count and to spend his spare time vandal fighting? :) Dlohcierekim 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in a bit late to this discussion. :-) I have to agree with some of the sentiments above and also expressed by Durin. RfA is about determining whether or not the community has come to a consensus on whether or not the candidate is qualified to be an administrator, and in this case, it did not, from the bureaucrat's interpretation. Even though I, one of the supporters, have full and absolute trust in the candidate's ability (and felt that I could not express my feelings any better than Mindspillage had in the co-nomination statement), I respect the fact that other people did not have this trust, and I respect their reasons for opposition, most of which are valid reasons for opposing. Simply because someone is part of the OTRS team does not automatically guarantee promotion to admin, just as being an admin does not guarantee access to OTRS. While it should definitely be a factor by demonstrating the work and effort of this particular individual, many other voters disagreed with the numerous qualifications (obviously I'm a bit biased, of course) and we should respect and value those opinions and sentiments as well. RfA is about consensus and the will and standards of the entire community. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If RfA is only just about the community, and no longer about the encyclopedia or the wiki, we may indeed have to consider shutting it down or replacing it. Kim Bruning 23:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as soon as we find something better, of course. :-) You make a good point. The encyclopedia is the objective. The community is the means to that end. Can't have one without the other. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course RfA is about the encyclopedia and the wiki; the administrators here serve this great project. However, it's that the accepted method of determining who gains administrator rights is by the community, and that's how we've come to implement it, regardless of what the process is called. It's not about the community, it's about choosing whether a candidate is qualified or not to be an administrator and serving the encyclopedia, and we've come to accept that such a process involves the community. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. ;-) It might be nice to have a community decide, very nice even. But it would help if they made saner descisions! :-P Kim Bruning 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very difficult to come up with a sane solution to an insane problem ;-)

A major issue here is that admins combine the position of a janitor with that of an enforcer (or a keeper of the peace, if you prefer). The obvious distinction between the two is that the janitorial side of things deals primarily with articles, while the other deals directly with contributors; wrongly blocking someone is likely to cause more trouble (as measured in numbers of valuable contributors leaving and such) than wrongly deleting some random page. We need a system that can adequately make use of people who are perfectly capable of doing janitorial work—and who are fully trusted to do so—but who may be considered temperamentally unsuited for the blocking/unblocking side of things (which tends to be the cause of most wheel wars as well). Maybe two separate types of admins would help? (An obvious side effect would be that the "senior" admins could prevent wheel warring among the "junior" ones—who wouldn't have blocking abilities—by blocking them; whether this is desirable is open to debate.) Kirill Lok s h in 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Our junior admins need to be able to block vandals. They should perhaps not block established contributors (for whatever reason) in the first couple of months of their adminship, but that is a social problem that can't be solved by a technical solution. Kusma (討論) 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the encyclopedia or the wiki are not important at RfA? Or that a different process (say, pure cabal approval) would generate better administrators? The concerns or standards of the community do sometimes mean that people who would be useful to Wikipedia as admins are not granted adminship (for example, AzaToth, where unlike in Amgine's case, there were no concerns that tools might be abused, just edit-counting). Yes, that is bad. However, a community admin process probably makes the community trust it a lot more than cabal approval. Keeping the crowds (i.e. the Wikipedia editors who form the community) happy is important for our goal of building an encyclopedia, and it is hard to weigh this against the importance of any single editor being given the sysop bit or not. Kusma (討論) 23:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as I said above, the fact that RfA is focused on the encyclopedia is exactly why Amgine's RfA failed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure sure about that. It's not really "focused on the encyclopedia" so much as it's focused on arbitrary qualities and statistics as opposed to what's actually going to benefit the encyclopedia—I'm sure that people think they're doing what's best for Wikipedia, but oftentimes they really aren't.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether that focus on the encyclopedia is actually well-implemented, and whether it will produce the best possible admins, are other matters entirely. With regard to the first point, obviously we would like the best possible research to be done, though I think the heuristic used by RfA voters is quite efficient. Regarding the second point, it may be worth taking excellent work outside the encyclopedia, e.g. at sister projects or on Foundation-related tasks, into more account. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been times I have craved the ability to block vandals-- particularly at times when I’ve been 4 edits behind a blatant vandal and AIV is backlogged and there’s still no help in sight. I feel safe with blocking powers in such extreme circumstances. I know I lack the ability to do much more. I like Kusma (討論) ‘s suggestion about limited vandal blocking. I’m not sure how it could be implemented without creating another tier, say ”assistant Admin’s” with clearly delineated powers and access. The problem with power is can be addictive.

Proposals above don't go far enough. Consider Discussions for Adminship (Archive 55)

Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship is a proposed improvement to Requests for adminship, started by Ilyanep (one of our Bureaucrats - the people managing the Requests for Adminship process), which might help solve some of the problems we've seen recently. Perhaps people might have other such ideas as well. Kim Bruning 07:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In the discussion above some of the dissatisfaction appears to stem from the fact that a person was approved for OTRS but not approved for Adminship. Probably this is due to differences in how the two approvals proceed. I haven't any idea of how OTRS members are approved. Perhaps either we should adopt some of their procedures here, or vice versa. Can you explain how OTRS membership is handled? If we all know what the problem is then we'll have a better handle on the solution. -Will Beback 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

See: [8] Kim Bruning 10:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that reply It sounds like there is no real set procedure for ORTS nominations. Sort of a "it feels right" kind of thing. There's no reason to think that what seems right to a handful of longtime users will be equally acceptable to a much larger community. I don't see a problem in that, and from what I gather in the previous conversation, neither do many other folks. Perhaps it'd be helpful to restate the problems that we all acknowledge so that we all know what outcome we're working towards. That said, I think there is a lot of benefit to the Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship proposal. -Will Beback 10:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

*Nod* OTRS people are hand picked. The discussions for adminship page probably covers most of your other questions. :-) Kim Bruning 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what's the problem? -Will Beback 10:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Starting the ball rolling...

1. Users who do not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding either self-nominating or being nominated.

2. Users who have a good chance but who have some impediments needing a chance to work through their issues.

3. ?

Let's continue to define the problem. -Will Beback 10:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary of large debate we've had so far. (see above under RFA needs review) : "We are getting false positives and false negatives. (And some fairly odd ones just recently) How can we do better on that?" Kim Bruning 11:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of false positives or false negatives, RfA seems to get it right incredibly often. Temporary rejections (candidates that fail now but will pass after a bit more experience) are not false results, just legitimate postponements IMO. NoSeptember ^talk 14:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The debate you summarize as being "large" is a pittance compared to the debate that has raged about WP:DFA. I continue my strong objections to the DFA process as it stands now. My words on the subject can be found on its talk page and in its talk page archives. --Durin 12:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Heya Durin. You wouldn't happen to have a proposal of your own, would you? :-) Kim Bruning 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made specific recommendations at the DFA process. As to a recommendation of my own, no. Any recommendation I did do would be working with a large number of other people anyway. Right now, given the projects I am working on I don't have the time. Furthermore, I don't personally see a significant reason to overhaul RfA, so I lack the motivation to lead such an effort. --Durin 14:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA seems an efficient enough process to me. The "bad" candidates are usually detected, and the good ones usually get elected. --Knucmo2 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that by "bad" Knucmo2 meant something more like "not currently ready to be administrators." If this is the case, then I concur with the above sentiment. Kuki ni

20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I must also echo Durin's words at these times. I've given my opinion many times (and can be found in the talk pages and archives); I don't believe that "discussions for adminship" is the right step at this time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, what short memories some people have. I recently posted on this page stating my strong surprise at a particular candidate failing to be promoted. If you're aware of it or not, I considered both Silsor and Amgine together to be a kind of acid test of RFA at this time. One passed and one didn't.

I'm well aware of the weaknesses of acid tests. But if the acid test fails, or only passes partially, it *is* time to check and recheck ones beliefs.

When someone goes "Look! There's smoke coming out of that house!" , the correct action would be to go look at the house, to be sure it's not on fire.

It's not the best of ideas to say "Oh, it was fine when I looked last year, so it's probably ok." and refuse to look.

Kim Bruning 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (Of course the smoke could be from some innocent cause, but you'll never know unless you do look.)

Yes, and my response then to your surprise regarding this particular candidate's RfA stands: a significant portion of people did not feel that the candidate was qualified to become an administrator. While I disagreed (and still disagree) with that decision and still feel that Amgine is qualified, I respect their opinion and their reasons for opposition. The processes we have created - regardless of whether it is called "requests" or "discussions" - entrust the community with the ultimate choice of whether a candidate is qualified or not to become an administrator and serve the encyclopedia; in this one particular case, the community did not. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So you would put it that the community itself fails this particular acid test? Kim Bruning 11:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No; I respect and acknowledge the fact that even though I and many others expressed support for the qualifications of the candidate, that others expressed valid and legitimate opposition to the candidate's qualifications. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To Durin: The DfA process is currently being entirely rewritten on the talk page. So it really doesn't quite stand exactly. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just reviewed it, and there aren't any significant changes. One of my primary objections remains; there's still not attempt at ascertaining what's wrong with RfA. --Durin 23:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because Stevage purged it from WP:DFA. (It wasn't much, but it was a start. Unfortunately some people don't appreciate the fact that not everyone is crazy about DFA.) Johnleemk | Talk 02:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed modification to RfA process. (Archive 60)

Please provide your feedback on a proposed modification of the RfA process posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia jurors. Folajimi 03:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure of Rf Adminship (Archive 61)

This way of creating admins is failing. It is dominated by geeks who love to vote, and the main criterion for adminship is the number of edits the particular user has. This discriminates people who

work 8 and more hours a day
prefer sports to sitting in front of a computer
prefer doing anything to sitting in front of a computer
have kids
are not school pupils
are not high school students
are not lame university students

I think that the RfA should be considered by a special comittee, that would also take other characteristics into account. ackoz 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An elitist proposal? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(this comment is to be taken less-than-seriously) LOL! I needed a good laugh, thanks! And I'm not against discriminating against those who like sports. Such people need to be shot :P. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. We elected a bureaucrat (Redux, see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3) who in two years got only 5,400 edits. This shows that the complaint at the top of this section is baseless. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that admins need to be around the project a lot, and people who are not around the project a lot tend to edit rather than vandal fight or other sysop chores, to describe this as discrimination seems unreasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Oleg, what are you doing rounding down almost a hundred of my edits?? But seriously, and in actuality, apart for one or two exceptions, all of them more recent promotions, Bureaucrats don't usually have amazingly high number of edits at the time of their promotions (and for the "older" Bcrats, that's not even easy to assess, since we didn't use to count edits and post the numbers at the time of their RfBs).
In general, both in RfA and RfB, we do tend to place more importance on the experience that the user's history suggests than on the sheer number of edits (recently, a couple of candidates with + 12 thousand edits received a lot of opposition because they had little experience in project space). Many users also feel that enthusiasm doesn't necessarily prepares for Adminship (users with five-digit number of edits, but who did it in only a handful of months, often receive opposition justified as "lack of experience"). Redux 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. ok for the elders, but now the numbers matter right? There are always people who only look at the numbers. Personally, I think that having 50 edits per day or more for one year is a significant health risk. ackoz

22:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that RfA can be flawed at times, but in the long run, it's the lesser of evils. Having a 'committee' would simply be creating a cabal, and it would severely restrict the potential evaluation of a candidate.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

About having 50 edits a day being unhealthy. Well, it probably is, but on two occasions I managed to get 500 in one day and I didn't suffer any health problems, so I think were safe. — The King of Kings 12:59 July 02 '06

Related to the first comment: Is there a profile of a typical sysop? I know that most work 8 hours a day, so the first assumption isn't true, but the 2nd and 3rd... I hope they aren't true either, but I'm not too sure. :P As for assumption 4, we're all dedicated Wikiholics aren't we? Kimchi.sg 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can debunk assumption number two, as I am a sportsaholic, both in the sense of playing and watching sports, and I know that there are several other admins of whom this is also true. However, many of us live in constant fear of Celestianpower's vigilante group. :oP EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I meet all of the above. Except kids. I'm sure many others do too. I challenge any wikipedian in Toronto to tennis. Except Deathphoenix. He'll probably demolish me -- Samir धर्म 15:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(Possibly just my own) problems with the way the RfA process is being carried out (Archive 62)

Over the past six months or so, I've tried to keep an eye on the RfA process with the hopes of actually, y'know, contributing to it. I've only managed to do so a few times, because most of the time, it just sucks all the energy out of me. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that it's not so much about picking people who make good admins as it is about getting people to jump through hoops. I realize that this is not intentional, but in effect, that what it seems to boil down to. It was only very recently that I actually noticed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, which I find absolutely ridiculous. We get, what, fifty sets of edit/time standards and various other standards that range from clear-cut "must not have been blocked for vandalism" to far more vague "any user that has contributed to the society so much that they are running out of things to do and are ready for some new privelages". Okaaaaay.

Guys. Seriously. We're talking about adminship, not conforming to some kind of a weird template that is composed of a kazillion little non-compatible pieces. It's supposed to be no big deal. Yes, I absolutely agree that there are standards that should be met. Someone who goes around adding the word "penis" to random articles or picking fights or constantly violating NPOV and whatnot is not good admin material, that much is dictated by common sense. Likewise, if it can be demonstrated that the user doesn't understand (or isn't willing to stick to) Wikipedia's policies, yes, by all means, oppose that nomination. That's only smart.

But all this "signature's too long/don't like his wording/don't support self-nominations/doesn't dedicate his life to fighting vandals/must have made a significant contribution to a featured article" crap -- I realize that most people don't think of it as elitism, but that's exactly what it is. The key question should be "is it likely that this user will abuse the admin tools?" If the answer is yes, by all means, oppose. If the answer is no, support. And, of course, if more information is needed to make a decision, asking is always good. But, for example, take this this weird unspoken requirement that anyone who becomes an admin must demonstrate a need for all of the admin tools all the time -- so closing AfDs isn't enough, you must also fight vandals, and vice versa. As if having an admin who just quietly takes care of the AfD backlog would do Wikipedia any harm.

And speaking of the questions that get asked from admin candidates, by the way... I'm sorry, but some of them are downright ridiculous. For example, "After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?" What, does anyone actually expect someone to answer "no, because I don't care about massive collateral damage" to this one? In fact, does it make any difference what someone answers to these questions, as long as he says something that pleases the person asking the question? Is anyone actually going to check and see if the new admin, once he's been approved, is going to keep his promises -- and more importantly, if the admin says, "well, I know I promised to be active in this area, but guess what, I changed my mind" or simply "I ain't doing anything admin related 'cause I don't wanna", so what? Is that going to get his adminship revoked? I find the question "In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?" particularly laughable, because it's blindingly obvious that in order to become an administrator, a certain amount of politicking is required. I realize that it's asked in good faith and it's not in any way a stupid question in itself, but in the context of the actual RfA process it's like asking a soldier driving a tank in a combat zone whether he considers a familiarity with his car or good knowledge of the rules of the road the most important quality of a good driver...

I'll probably piss people off with this one, and I apologize for that in advance. It's not my intention, and I may be overreacting. I just honestly find the actual process pretty far removed from "the community granting administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies". I don't know about you, but to me it feels demoralizing. -- Captain Disdain 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This fellow speaks the truth. A true and accurate summary. -Randall Brackett 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If the fellow could just condence his statement in 1/3 of the size above, would be much easier to read. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what the hell, here goes: "Currently, the RfA process sucks, because too many people insist on making a big deal about stupid shit completely unrelated to the actual issue of whether a prospective admin can be trusted to not abuse the admin tools. Also, some of the questions are kinda dumb. It makes me sad. YMMV."

Frankly, I kinda prefer my original version. -- Captain Disdain 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

These problems aren't just your own and I'm happy someone has been forthright about them. I'm also glad you haven't seen the glass half-full / half-empty question; you would have cried.

People have every right to add questions to RfAs, but they should really think twice and ask themselves "Self, do I know what this person is going to answer already?" and "Self, is this really relevant to this RfA?" and "Self, why am I asking this person a question if I already voted support for him/her? It's not like the answer really matters and I'm just giving the candidate more work." And about the half-full/half-empty question, I don't have a severe aversion to it, because it's quite light-hearted and doesn't require a long response that could use up a considerable amount of the candidate's time. But there are other questions that do. Remember, the candidates have jobs or schoolwork, family and friends; their time is precious too. Asking numerous, useless questions (and I'm not suggesting that everyone, or even the majority, of questioners do) just puts unnecessary stress on the candidate. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen the glass question, but at least that's an obvious joke. I don't have a problem with jokes. (And incidentally, the glass isn't half full or half empty -- it's too big.) -- Captain Disdain 17:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spurious questions should be boldly removed. If more than one user wants to read the answer, they may not be so spurious. But trusting every editor to show good judgement about when to further questions shouldn't be valued over trusting other editors to show good judgement about what questions to edit out of an RfA. Jkelly 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying to the original poster (oh, we have an article about that!), I like to assume good faith. I have noticed that people sometimes put questions like "Do you like coffee?" (an example about the tone, not about the question), usually after a batch of questions. I see them as a way of getting the candidate relaxed. Nobody expects him to answer "Yes, I like the Colombian, as it is softer to my taste than the Brazilian one. However, I must admit Maragogype is fairly superior Bourbon, thus I like spending some more dollars getting it." but instead "Nah, I want to sleep from time to time. You know, that thing we used to do for 8 hours every day before joining Wikipedia. Or having a baby." Removing these kind of questions, which may be considered off-topic or ridiculous, would only enhance the "seriousness" of the RFA, which was one of the complains of the OP (It's supposed to be no big deal.).

As for the standard list, there is no policy about candidates in Wikipedia, thus each of us is allowed to set his own standards. Someone people vote oppose in some RFAs because they think there are "too many Administrators already" or because "there is no way to remove a bad admin" (which I have read before, and could source if you really want me to). Others support people who have written a Featured article, while others vote just because the user has never been blocked and has done some good contributions, even if they make only 50 or 60 edits per month. That Standard list is just a collection of thoughts by people. I wonder how many of them do really vote in every RFA, applying their written standards. -- ReyBrujo 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mm. In case it's not immediately obvious, my main point is not really the questions, and even when it comes to the questions, my concern is not the coffee/half-full/half-empty/what superpower do you want questions. As I said, I don't mind jokes. That's all kind of beside the point. -- Captain Disdain 23:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As a long-time editor who is currently being run through one of the more bizarre gauntlet experiences that the RfA has become, might I propose we do a rework of the rationale for who should and shouldn't be an administrator? I think there should be a single major consideration:

Is there evidence that the user would abuse administrator tools?

If the answer is yes, then the user shouldn't be given those tools so we can spare ourselves the wasted time of endless dispute resolutions.

Possible ways to show whether or not this has occurred would be: a) the user hasn't been around long enough to determine the answer to the question, b) the user doesn't know what the administartor tools are, c) the user has behaved in a way that may indicate she/he is likely to abuse administrator toos. In my RfA, there are a number of votes that seem to indicate an extreme laziness on the part of the users who are voting. A large number if not majority of those opposing my request are doing so because my responses to the questions were too short! This is not even a stated criteria for gaining the tools. I think that people who hang out here at RfA need to get a wake-up call. We need to make it clear that administrator tools are not given when users reach featured status. They are given to users who demonstrate a desire to use the tools, know what they are for, and show evidence they won't abuse them.

--ScienceApologist 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Some RfA voters seem to have created unnecessary criteria. Wikipedia would benefit if all sensible people were admins, sharing the workload. People who abuse their status will lose their extra privileges. Stephen B Streater 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, all I have to say is this:

In the last two weeks, I have noticed the following:

An average of two or three backlogs (50+ CSD) per day in CAT:CSD.

Orphaned fairuse deletions three-four days overdue

AfDs four-five days old still open

A significant drop in admin percentage from .1 to .05

A significant drop in RfA success rate and RfA NOMINATIONS in general, actually causing some users to lose interest in the site

Anyone noticing a pattern here? We need more people to help clear the backlogs, because it's timely and boring work for just one or two admins — heck, in that respect, perhaps it's best that we put people who like doing tedious things in the adminship group! And this "Wikipedia edit" nonsense — how does editing a policy prove that a person adheres to policy? Heck, if they're going off and modifying policies left and right, that means that they are liberal and don't want to follow the current policy ammendments. That could actually be a bad thing. RfA is not a 45-day workplace evaluation to determine a pay raise. Granted, admins should be part of the cream of the crop, and yes, I expect administrators to help people out and set the standard of behavior on the site, which is why I oppose based on past issues and lack of experience, not amount of edits (unless it's very low). — Deckill e r 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little digging up as of early July 10 to see which of the new admins (post May 29) have been doing the deleting (the overwhelming number of admin tools) in File:Admin.sxc (OpenOffice) . Interesting to see some of the stats.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a fairly unique position to see both sides of the fence, having had my first (self-)nom turned down very soundly 3 months ago, and having been sysopped just this morning with only 1 oppose.[9] 3 months ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly with Captain Disdain's viewpoint (and wikilawyered like mad to advance it). I'm not condemning it now, but I do see things more fully than I used to. One thing that is very misleading is that the guidelines on requirements for adminship are completely out of step with the actual practice, and as that is a practice evolved through consensus, it is going to stay. Simply showing you won't abuse the tools isn't enough any more, even if it was once. To a certain extent it is about jumping through hoops, but not for the sake of it.

Editors looking at a RfA want to feel confident in a candidate, and that candidate has to positively demonstrate competence, commitment and starting to work on some of the things that s/he will do as an admin (e.g. AfD). It's not the case that a candidate has to pretend to be a potential super(wo)man. In fact some of the positive responses I received were because I was quite frank about where I saw my current limitations and how I addressed them. Candidates pretending to knowledge which is beyond them, undermine their position.

As far as the questions go, I think it is fair enough that if someone wants the powerful tools to block, protect and delete, they should be prepared for whatever is thrown at them during the RfA for the few days it is in progress. If you get a dumb question, then that is a test of how you cope with such things. I disagree that there are pat predictable answers to questions that will get the thumbs up. That can have a hollow ring to it. Far better is a genuine, thoughtful, resourceful and innovative answer to a question, that shows a candidate is aware of the implications and has thought it through properly.

Basically, the requirements for adminship are what the editors taking part in the process want to see, and a number have stated what that is. If you want their support, then you have to meet their requirements, or you have to demonstrate other strengths sufficient to cause them to bend their own rules, and this certainly does happen. Following my first RfA, I decided I would try out the requirements stated by different editors. It was a good training course. I went into areas I might not have done otherwise, and learnt a lot from it. If I'd been sysopped initially, I wouldn't have abused the tools, but the intervening experience has made me in a much stronger position to use them - and even so, I realise there's still a lot to learn.

A reasonably all-round experience of wiki is obviously now required. It doesn't mean every single area, but it does mean a balance between project space and main space, as well as talk and usually a good number of edits and certain length of time in wiki. It also means behaving to the right standard in these levels, with e.g. civility. These experiences give a sound basis for the step to adminship. Vandal-fighting can take different forms. I don't do RCP, but I have a considerable watch list I check each time I log on, and there are usually reverts necessary (with the attendant warnings left on user talk). If an editor doesn't fight vandals in some form, it calls into question their involvement with articles, which is, after all, the purpose of the exercise at the end of the day. If there isn't this involvement with articles, then participating in AfD becomes a questionable exercise. So the different areas link in with each other. As far as the FA requirement goes, this is only applied by one or two people (who sometimes give a neutral anyway), so it's not a decisive factor, but it is a good encouragement to take an interest in the FA process. This also applies to other more arcane requirements, so highlighting them is a red herring.

Tyrenius 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have a problem in my RfA, so I can't really say I've been on both sides of the fence — however, I nominated my friend Mipadi, and most of the oppose votes come from the fact that he has only 96 Wikipedia space edits. Which is quite interesting, since last time I checked, one doesn't have to write to be able to read, but that's just me (and that's why I prefer questions over edit counts in close cases). I like to see evidence of tedious work, for example, since most admin incompetence involves lack of work, not abusing the tools. — Deckill e r 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that users want less administrators, but rather that promoting a "bad" administrator usually ends up in some variety of spectacular fireworks, which alienate other editors. As a result, the base of users has become significantly more conservative as a means of self-defense. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very true. Which, naturally, backfires in terms of backlogs and other things. I think the key is finding a balance (which I tried to do with my somewhat loose RfA criteria) to keep up with things. After all, if a store had a crazy janitor and doesn't hire any more, the place will stink and turn off more customers than, say, a crazy janitor would. — Deckill e r 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  - But where do you find that balance? That's the reason behind the criteria. You want to promote someone who has proven competent for the job, yet not make it impossible for editors to pass in borderline cases. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    - I should perhaps also stress that I don't have a problem with picking people who are capable of handling the responsibility (and, conversely, turning away those who aren't). I'm all for it. Rather, my point is that very little of the posturing during the RfA process actually seems to be designed to ensure that the candidates have that capability. I realize that in theory, all is well. In practice, the process isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing, and I can't help thinking that a big reason for that is that a lot of editors love to set standards that they can -- often kind of smugly -- tout. I'm not saying that those standards are necessarily bad in themselves (hell, it's not like I don't have my own standards); I just think that the way they're paraded around is demoralizing and turns the entire process into a kind of a grotesque circus. I find the declarations about whether someone's 200 Wikipedia project space edits are good enough to qualify for adminship tedious and silly. We're not talking about rocket science here. We're not handing anyone the keys to the protective cover over the Big Red Button. On admin level, Wikipedia is not a terribly complicated structure, and the admin stuff is not particularly difficult (or, perhaps even more importantly, irreversible). Yes, it requires that the editor in question is a) careful when doing whatever he's doing, b) willing to take the time to read the policy and other relevant documentation on whatever he's doing before doing so and c) smart enough to not go and do random admin stuff without understanding the consequences of what he's doing. But honestly? Getting all that down is not complex stuff. And I'm not even saying that the standards should be lowered, I'm saying that the way the process is being conducted feels ugly. To me, at least. -- Captain Disdain 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable. As RFA is a beauty contest rather than an assessment of ones capabilities then inevitably it's going to beocme a question of chasing a range of arbitrary objectives. And from the look of the link it ranges from marginal to unreasonable. Still, the real question is 'What are admins actually for' and tbh it looks like an internal backsslapping convention, there are few enough that actually get on with the legwork. There whould be plenty admins to actually crack on with admin work, but mos don't seem to. The question is not,, have we got enough admins, but have we got enough admins actually using the facilities which being an admin brings!ALR 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, which is why the current dillema is so great — we aren't promoting enough admins who are actually doing the jobs, perhaps because in the process of spending so much time tailoring their edits to meet criteria that they get burned out? Maybe; it could also be a lack of a decent promotion percentage, or a lack of nominations because of the lack of a decent promotion percentage. Or perhaps the lack of incentive? It could be any number (or a combination of) reasons. That's exactly why showing examples of tedious work is being implemented into my criteria. — Deckill e r 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a real problem. Perhaps we should make Wikipedia:What adminship is not clearer and required reading for all voters. It's Wikipedia equivalent helps a lot when certain users try to impose external values in articles. A similar technique could be helpful in weeding out the "external values" that have begun to crop up in usual suspect votes on RfA. For example, in my RfA I was accused of both being too eager to get administrator tools and not eager enough. I understand that a user should accept nomination which makes the intention to use the tools clear (along with the nomination statement and the responses to questions), but "eagerness" is a quality that doesn't really get at the fundamental issue that should be associated with oppose votes: is this user likely to abuse the admin tools? I have added some prose to the RfA page and to the "Admin not" page to begin the ball rolling on this problem. --ScienceApologist 09:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To add one more thing, I was discussing these problems with one of the people who supported my RfA and suggested on this user's talkpage that we start an RfC regarding this issue. This caused another round of voting against my RfA on the grounds that I was being hostile (assuming, maybe, that I was going to start a User-RfC on each and every user who voted against me.... I mean, come on, where's the good faith?). It might be a good idea to push this issue elsewhere on Wikipedia since not every user (surprise, surprise) frequents the RfA pages. This area of Wikipedia is starting to feel more like an autonomous feifdom and less like a simple place where we, as a community, try to decide whether people should get a set of admin tools. --ScienceApologist 09:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If the community is being over cautious to stop bad admins getting in, we should desysop some bad admins. Stephen B Streater 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If the current crop of administrators had to go through RfA today, would the majority of them be made administrators? If the answer is "no" (and I believe it is) then there is something wrong with the system and we need to change it. --ScienceApologist 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I've just had a quick look through your RfA. I'm sure some of it was a bit of a shock, but I earnesty advise you to study it carefully and take on board the advice given. Tyrenius 01:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see what your summary of the RfA is. If you want to let me know what specific advice I should take away from it, please let me know on my talkpage. --ScienceApologist 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And that response encapsulates why I don't support you, ScienceApologist. Rather than saying "Yeah, I will look into it, maybe there is stuff for me learn from!" You are basically saying "This is all BS, and I want you to point out to me how it isn't BS." Simply not the right attitude for an admin. Your pestering me on my talk page has gotten tiresome, using terms like "are you seriously" and telling me that i'm not allowed to find your attitude off-putting has basically pushed me over the edge. Please, step back, take a breath; stop automatically blaming everything - and everyone - else for this hicup on your road to adminship. Themindset 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a taste of the medicine you are prescribing is in order? In the past I expressed a disagreement towards your opinions and a disapproval of some of your interpretations, but your strawman arguments regarding what I am "saying" seem really out-of-line. I really am not "blaming" anyone for anything. I am saying that I don't understand what you are trying to say and this last post in particular seems to lack a level of civility -- which is a bit ironic considering how our discussions began. While I do question your judgements, I'm not taking anything out on you or "everything -and everyone". --ScienceApologist 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should all check out Curps's RfA. I seriously doubt that the same result would occur today. Another thing that bugs me is people voting oppose because the editor has too few "substantial" edits <cough>1FA</cough>. An administrator does not receive a magic pen, so if they are mostly doing cleanup/maintenance to articles and fighting vandalism, does that not make them better prepared for adminship than an editor who only writes articles? ...Sorry, I just had to get that rant off my chest. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should carefully study all the criticism/advice, put it into practice for 3 months and then you will be successful. Tyrenius 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of Mr. Lefty's own RfA, I think he's entirely correct here. Curps would never pass that RfA today -- not with a self-nomination that says, in its entirety, "I have been on Wikipedia since February 2004 and have a few thousand edits, and have a good understanding of how Wikipedia works." You'd get fifteen people piling on him and instantly accusing him of lack of interest in adminship or lack of experience with Wikipedia's policies or something along those lines.

Is replacing a pretty straightforward and bullshit-free process like Curps had with what we have now really something worthwhile? Is the quality of new admins now somehow considerably better than it was before? (Or, conversely, were there more abusive admins in the past than there are now?) -- Captain Disdain 03:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an impressive, thorough and responsible assessment of candidates, and, furthermore, a level of feedback which will enable any unsuccessful candidate to gain all the direction they need for a subsequent successful return, if they are prepared to listen and put into practice what is said to them. That, at least, has been my experience. However, it can be quite a shock to the system at first, as a few illusions and delusions get shattered. Doubtless that is also good preparation. Tyrenius 04:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well. Not that there isn't valuable feedback in there as well, but overall, it seems to get lost in the noise. Of course, if the idea is to prepare the candidates for accepting that, say, they can't work with the AfD backlog unless they spend time trying to make something into a featured article or that their signature has something to do with whether they can block vandals, yeah, I'd say it's pretty good preparation. Personally, I don't think of that as an ideal set of circumstances, but we've already estbalished that much. The horse is getting kinda dead here, so I should probably stop beating it. =) -- Captain Disdain 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Very informal poll (Archive 63)

The current Support/Oppose system is simple enough and works well in the absolute majority of cases.

Agree

Sure. RfA isn't perfect, but perfection is unrealistic. It works in the large majority of cases, and there's yet to be anything proposed that would work better. It seems like the main criticism of RfA is ultimately "This one person I really like didn't get chosen", and if that's the problem, then no consensus-based system is ever going to satisfy you. --W.marsh 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not to say that tweaks and improvements over time aren't important. The whole reason the current system works is that it's developed naturally over time to deal with the various problems that have come up. Thus, we should start all reform by clearly stating the problem to be adressed, rather than just proposing all kinds of totally new systems. --W.marsh 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be good to know which arguments each person has read. Marginal votes (with a wider range) could result in a second round where only people who have assessed the totality of arguments from the first round express an opinion. I'm always a bit surprised at how few people take enough notice of the discussion to change their minds. Stephen B Streater 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What W.marsh said. --Tango 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. Grue 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a not a perfect system, but it has few false positives (qualified admins being rejected) and very few false negatives (unqualified admins being promoted). I would like to see fewer votes lacking any reason at all. Aren't I Obscure? 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Add me - Obvious. However, i'd have prefered this poll to be about shifting from universal suffrage to census suffrage. Admins are better fit to vote than non-admins (w/ all my respect to good abd very good contributors). -- Szvest 19:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}
Perhaps - in most cases but 'crats should engage in judicial activism a bit more so to speak, especially as per what Cyde and Naeblis say. In any case, if there is new info, a person who tries to ask a drive-by to reconsider is often fears being threatened for "soliciting votes" - also some users are very reluctant to switch sides - perhaps they feel "weak" if they did so, which is a problem if new info is discovered and a swing begins to develop.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree - I waited to read the disagree opinions below before voting and quite frankly the alternatives offered to my mind are not any better than the current system. The current format does have problems, but, my fear with a comment based system is that the most vocal, agressive and users that write the longest comments will cause their opinion to have undue weight - which is unfair. At the end of the day it could quite easily become a free for all shouting match. One "vote" (note the ""s) per user is a better option to my mind (at least at this stage) - Glen 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Generally, RfA does a good job. Anyone who thinks that the system is broken because of the rejection of X (or the "flawed" promotion of X) should consider that his/her individual judgment is at least as likely to be in error as is a community process. Xoloz 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Am I too late? Did they close the RfA? ;) -- Avi 02:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

Early votes are frequently "drive-by" and do not take into account either refutation of earlier claims of terrorism/vandalism/eating kittens, or false aggrandizements of skill and sainthood. Even a few days of discussion/research into the candidate before voting would be a nice incremental improvement. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This recent RFA shows that we are already using RFA exactly how you describe it should be done. [10] I did not want to overwhelm the RFA with my comment too early so I purposely waited. Many users came back and changed from support to oppose. For that reason, I think RFA is working. We need to encourage both oppose and support commenters to to a better job explaining themselves. FloNight ^talk 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in that instance what you did took into account the nature of RfA, but I'm not sure that demonstrates that the process is working in general. Why did you want to wait to comment, for example? I submit that it's because RfAs are presently frontloaded. That's why I'm in favor of a period of discussion/evidentiary findings before people start piling on the votes. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think there's too much subjectivity into what an admin should be, and I also think that if you're going to apply a standard, the standard needs to be applied uniformly across the board to all administrators, not just new administrators. I think that the current process pushes editcountitis and doesn't reinforce the policy aspects of administration. I think that if edit counts are going to be taken into consideration, then the quality of the edit counts needs to be taken into consideration as well. I think that if an editor can demonstrate that he or she can do the job, regardless of edit counts, they should be permitted to become an administrator. CQJ 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with nae'blis. I think a three day comment period followed by a seven day voting period would be better. The way it is now, a bunch of votes comes in before the candidate has responded to anything but the default questions. Oftentimes a lot of really insightful questions are asked, but combine the lag of the question asker finding out about the RFA and the candidate getting around to responding to them and you frequently have over half the votes coming in before the candidate has even responded to any questions specifically tailored to him (versus the general RFA questions). --Cyde↔Weys 00:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the logic in this system Cyde - after all, we are all welcome to change our votes pending new answers. In fact I can think of more than one RfA from just this past week where the decision totally turned about face when new info came to hand. - Glen 05:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why have a voting period at all? Why not just have a comment period? What purpose does voting serve? Can't we determine consensus without voting? --ScienceApologist 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Without a specific voting period, the comment period will turn into a vote, despite everyone's best intentions. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need to vote, but this is wikipedia, not an ideal world. --Tango 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
What if we had people write only comments that were objections to the nomination? Those reading the nominations could join the conversation about the objections. The closing bureaucrat could then read through the discussions and give specific reasons why the nominations failed. Or would that devolve us into too much Usenet-ness? --ScienceApologist 01:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a proposal floating around my mind which works along similar lines. Prehaps I'll write it up properly somewhere... --Tango
You have my full support. --ScienceApologist 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm with nae'blis and cyde. As soon as an rfa is posted, there is a rush to get votes in. A lot of the users that vote never come back to check the comments, making it impossible for them to have any effect. A 3 day waiting period for would completely solve this problem. Alphachimp ^talk 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no clue how to fix this, but a voter who doesn't check back for further discussion isn't much of a voter. Real elections have serious debates with informal polls, but the only thing that matters is a few hours of real voting. --mboverload @ 07:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Let everyone vote twice, but your second vote must be at least 48 hours after your first vote. If you don't come back to vote the second time, your opinion will get only half the weight as those who do. I'd prefer this to prohibiting anyone from voting during a comment period because it is natural to state your support or opposition when you are making a comment. NoSeptember 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Double voting isn't logical or necessary. If people were more willing to go back and change/revisit their earlier vote, the quality of votes would improve, but while some wikipedians do, I don't believe they're in the majority. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a very easy way of making RFA better, which is to require at least one relevant diff for every 'vote' made. Think the user is a good and sensible editor? Provide a diff to back it up. Think the user doesn't grasp policy? Provide a diff to support that claim. Don't know how to provide a diff? Then you shouldn't be involved in selecting Wikipedia administrators. Simple, to the point, requires people to either know what the nominee has done or do some research, and beter informs the whole process. Proto::type 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So hundred voters will have to find a hundred distinct diffs ? Tintin (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Why not? It sounds a lot less onerous if you say 'each editor will have to find a new diff'. If you can only find one diff that proves the editor is an terror that should never be let near the rollback and block buttons, then perhaps that line of thinking isn't completely correct. And there wouldn't be a hundred voters, as this would remove all those drive-by voters who only vote 'support' to every RFA so when they go for their RFA, they'll make it. You would actually have to have some kind of investment in the process to have a say. Proto::type 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The last thing you mentioned is why I don't really ever vote support on an RFA unless I know the guy or I've put a signficant amount of effort into evaluating the candidate (including asking questions). I'll be honest, I'm lazy, so there's a lot of RFAs that I just don't put the time into, and thus don't vote Support even if it's 75-0 and nobody's brought up a credible objection. On the other hand, I tend to oppose rather often, even when I find just a little something wrong. This is because of a combination of my high admin criteria and a desire to balance out all of the blind support votes. --Cyde↔Weys 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So if someone is a perfectly good Wikipedian except that he's replaced major pages with a penis image three separate times at large intervals, and ignored any attempt to get him to comment or apologize, he only needs to get a dozen supporters (which will get progressively easier as Wikipedia grows) to outvote everyone and become admin? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Errr, huh? Where did you get that from? Are you implying that 'diffs' wouldn't include Image upload logs? -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Simetrical is acting under the assumption that we will keep the 75-80% threshold requirement with this new system. (See how nefarious this voting thing is, once it is established, people don't want to give it up!) Simetrical is pointing out that there might be some admin candidate who unapologetically replaced an article with a penis image one time over the course of their career. In this case, there would be only one diff, but if said candidate could drum up 12 of his friends to vote for him AND we required everybody to provide a different diff to support their objections then it could be with this curious amalgamated system that awful admin candidate gets the nod. However, I think what we are suggesting here is getting rid of this outdated 75% threshold business all together and replacing it with a meaningful comment section that requires people to refer to the actions of the candidate. That way a real evaluation can be done instead of one that relies on the majority of the unwashed masses coming in and expressing unresearched opinions in the hope of swaying consensus. --ScienceApologist 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what some of us are suggesting, yes, but I gather the only change Proto would make is to force each oppose to present a different diff. I'm saying that a single diff, or a few diffs, could potentially be a sufficiently good reason to oppose to merit the rejection of a candidate, which this proposal doesn't account for. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I hadn't caught that nuance. I would submit that the diffs showing a lack of response to objections to the candidate's penisification of the Wiki would be additional diffs that could be submitted under such an (admittedly baroque) system. It's also a bit of a straw man, however... -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that this page almost more than any other is a slap-in-the-face to consensus which is, to my understanding, not based on a democratic sentiment but rather on something more like a meritocratic sentiment.^[1] But at RfA, there is little to no attempt to measure the merit of people's comments unless there are some users that take it upon themselves to point out problems with the explanations for the votes and, in fact, there are a number of editors who object to doing this and will vote against a nomination on principle if a nominee or a even another user tries to start discussions about the explanations (this happened to me). The support/oppose dichotomy which is set-up only serves to encourage people to treat the RfA discussion as if it is a popularity contest. I think that this system of having a "comment" section that's really a "voting" section where a super-duper majority of voters must commit for there to be a reasonable chance for an adminship to succeed is duplicitous. In principle, I have no problems with the system being this way, but it isn't described this way in the description of the RfA nor is it clearly stated that what is really going on in every RfA is an attempt to drum up support for one's nomination to the tune of 75 to 80% of the people voting for you. Can't anyone see how ridiculous this is? --ScienceApologist 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's have a comment-based system and leave the decision up to the bureaucrat. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should try that out for a few weeks. --mboverload @ 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Set some firmer criteria rather than letting everyone vote (and that is the correct term for what goes on today in RFA) however they feel like, allow people to comment on whether the candidate meets the criteria, and then let the bureaucrat decide. Which, yes, will give them much greater power than they currently have; in debatable cases they could confer and have a vote (which might seem to defeat the purpose of reform until you realize that they'd be voting on whether the candidate met sensible consensus requirements, not voting however they felt like). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I Agree with Cyde that something needs to be done so that late objections don't go unnoticed. The "comment" period would need to be fairly structured ... almost like an RFC ... otherwise, it could have the same problems the current system has. I don't like the idea of restricting the voting process to administrators - for a very simple reason. If there are lots of people you can't get along with, sometimes, it isn't everyone else - it's you. I understand that active admins sometimes have users with a vendetta (even then, a lot of it can be brought upon themselves - if you taunt the trolls, don't be surprised when they respond), but we're not talking about people who are already administrators. If you can find 20 people to oppose someone for non-trivial reasons (ie, "there are too many admins already"), even if not a one of those opposing is themselves an administrator, there's probably something wrong somewhere. BigDT 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Implement an evidence/comment subpage and permit the bureaucrat to make the decision on said data. -Randall Brackett 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes

^ Some critics of Wikipedia have pointed out that certain articles have been deleted even though the majority of the people who commented on the articles wanted them to be kept. This is because consensus is not acheived simply by getting a glut of users to mimic each other and type similar points. I think this feature of consensus-building serves us well at AfD.

Comments

Neutral. First, I think that it's ironic that this poll question about the effectiveness of the "support/oppose" system uses the "support/oppose" system. ;) Irony aside, I have not been enolved enough in the RfA system to have a highly informed opinion. Based upon my limited experience here, however, I think that it works well enough. Then again, I would be open to suggestions. --AaronS 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. On one hand, it does generally work - most people who should be admins get promoted. On the other hand, there at least isn't a perception that rationales are taken into consideration in the support/opposes, meaning that I could walk in and support or oppose anyone for any reason, regardless as to whether it were true or not, and have it hold the same weight as anyone else. So is the support/oppose a good judge of consensus? Only up to the point that the strict vote counting gives a good indicator, but not of what the actual consensus is in a number of cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Quadruple Edit-Conflicted, Beat-the-Nom, Strongest Ever, Cliché, Rattatatat Ding-Dong Neutral on Top of the Reichstag Yes, RfAs are generally okay, but I feel like this RfA is not a vote is just a thing we say rather than a thing we put into practice. If we were to put a bit more effort into keeping requests for adminship a discussion rather than a place where candidates are, in many cases, discouraged from responding to comments about them, we'd have more informed and less over-the-top !votes. That would make the requests for adminship process significantly better. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"Very few false negatives": Sure there may not be many admins promoted who go around vandalizing, but unwise or impolite administrators may still be promoted. As pointed out above, also, there are bad administrators, which are the reason for the Oversight permission, and there are indeed administrators who block and protect over content disputes they are involved in. Also, if half the rejected administrator (not withdrawn) could have been approved with us still being able to say "Very few false negatives", that could indicate a failure in RfA. Another problem I see is that it does not scale up, where the sheer numbers become less and less an indication of suitability for adminship. These numerous "Support for awesomeness" do not all represent evaluations of administrative ability, and provide no reasons why the user should be administrator. One question is, one year from now when active users are maybe doubled, what happens when Voice-of-all, Crazyrussian, Yanksox, etc. are all voting one side, and on the other we have several registered users for a few months who make a few article edits every now and then but do not administrator functions? Certainly, the bureaucrats are doing their own research and making the decision, but insofar as that decision is not based on the RfA vote, the RfA vote is not meaningful. If the dozens of support votes with little or no justification do not strongly factor in, why not encourage reasonable discussion instead? —Centrx→talk • 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem with support/oppose is that there's no set idea of what a person needs to be an admin. Drive-by votes of "looks okay" are harmful, but so are "has enough edits in all the right places". Admins do a lot more than what they are 'approved' to do, and while RC patrolling is good, RC patrollers should not all be admins. Admins need to negotiate with other admins and they need to agree with other admins and have a unified front. Accepting anyone who believes anything about the project because they've got enough edits will split the unified front which holds us together, a bad thing. RfA needs to be a discussion, in which all the participants continue to be involved for the entirety of it. I don't know how to do that, heh, but the vote-and-go, at best, needs to stop, somehow. --Keitei (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. Undoubtedly some people don't check back on updates, and this isn't good, but I can't see what an alternative is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The alternative is to have reasons. If a person bases his opinion on something that later turns out to be false or weak, it can be considered in that light. Currently, we don't know if a person's "Support" is because he is accepting what is described in the nomination straightforwardly—which could end up being exaggeration or somesuch, or whether it is based on his knowledge and a good examination of the user's contributions, or whether it is based solely on edit summary usage. It would also encourage returning because a user would not feel as though he has stuffed his vote in the ballot box and that is that, without bothering with or caring about discussion. —Centrx→talk • 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. And then we could set out some firmer criteria to stop all the people who think that someone who's made 1000 model edits over three months is suddenly going to turn around and start abusing tools. Okay, you've convinced me. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Having seen many of these discussions and polls on the same topic over the last 15 months or so, let me guess that absolutely nothing will come out of this poll. We will make the same few arguments back and forth. The discussions will go on for three or four days. There won't any consensus except for status quo, a couple of people will make suggestions which will be immediately shot down, and it will business as usual. Tintin (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- What is necessary is having a formal proposal, getting the bureaucrats to agree, and getting a significant number of administrators and editors to support them. The problem is that few people seem to be involved with this Talk page, even the dozens of people who regularly vote in RfAs. Saying that nothing will come of it because nothing has come of it before is a self-fulfilling argument, as people may ignore the discussion, thinking it moot, and there will never be any change to RfA, barring a major catastrophe. Even with a major problem, for example wheel warring, for some reason people didn't conclude that it indicated a problem in the way those administrators were selected in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Things won't change because the current process is very simple and works very well. Significant changes will make the process much more burdensome (think WP:DfA) and it won't prevent bad admins better than the existing one. Wheel warring happens very seldom and so far has been dealt smoothly with via requests for arbitration. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oleg is right. The beauty of the present system is its flexibility and adaptability. Change can happen by us, the participants, changing our standards, and this happens all the time. If every person who thought the process was broken committed to expressing their opinion on every editor who applied for adminship, they could easily move the standards of what is most important in selecting admins. If things aren't the way you like it, you are either not participating or your views are not in alignment with the community. NoSeptember 06:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well put. If you think a simple vote is insufficient, make sure you comment on each candidate in detail. If people like it, they will join in. Admins are the "rule from below" part of Wikipedia, after all. Stephen B Streater 06:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Support/Oppose is broken persay, but the criteria for selection of subject to drift indefinantly torwards unreasonableness. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Foo (wrong question)

Yes I've stopped beating my wife, wait I mean no! ... oh foo... I plead the fifth!.You're asking the wrong question and getting the wrong answer. RFA would be broken right now with or without support/oppose or what have you. It's irrelevant. Kim Bruning 19:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You failed to tell us what the right question is, a question that will lead us to do some sort of positive change. I want to know what you think it is. NoSeptember 20:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some:

Can we trust our current admins?
Answer: No. Empirically no, the foundation does not trust our current admins, in certain situations (Oversight, Office).
Can we rule out RFA being part of the problem?
Answer: No, in fact current rfa standards and processes appear to be geared towards arbitrary requirements, with no discernable relationship with the responsibilites admins should have. (see above)
Does RFA promote people who know much about wikipedia?
Answer: No. How many recently promoted admins know the trifecta and foundation issues? Many are clearly confused about consensus too.

to be fair do foundation issues really mater than much?Geni 13:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

- How about this one: Does the foundation have any problem with a particular admin, or are they being cautious about giving extremely sensitive information to 1,000 people, some of which they don't know anything about? Titoxd^(?!?) 23:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Anyone I actually nominate for admin... I actually do know a number of things about. Don't you? Kim Bruning 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    - What's your point? The foundation didn't nominate the 1000 admins, so why would they know about them? --Tango 00:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      - That's the problem. They do. They know that some are leaking information and causing legal difficulties. Kim Bruning 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Oversight is not an indicator of a "broken system". There will always need to be a "higher level", per se. You cannot simply assume that oversight would not have been created if RfA worked perfectly or under another system. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    We already have a higher level an sich. Apparently the load was so high that an entire system was needed. A similar argument goes for the Office policy. Kim Bruning 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    - - Previously the removal of history from the database could only be done by developers; Brion and others simply didn't have the time to do so, focusing mainly on the many technical issues that they deal with to keep all of the projects running. Oversight simply transferred the priviledge to other just as trusted people with the time and responsibility to do so; the creation of the level cannot be interpreted strictly as either a lack of trust in the admins or a broken RfA system. In a similar fashion, Office actions were necessary to improve the overall editing structure; by efficiently dealing with poor articles, we are not only improving our quality but serving the Foundation's need to deal with such queries. It does not implicate or imply that we have a broken RfA system. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        It should be so rare that Brion doesn't need to hand it off. Office is specifically there to fix problems when we have just made a spectacular error (think siegenthaler). Definately a vote of no confidence. Kim Bruning 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        All that media publicity about WP is bringing in the people and companies that have articles here, and more of them are expecting to fix their articles the way they like them without understanding the WP way. This is not a surprise to me, the demand for Office and oversight will grow like crazy, and would do so even if every admin were top notch. How can we expect to be a top 15 visited site and not get that sort of attention from the lovers and haters of the subjects of articles? NoSeptember 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        Our community should be able to handle problems internally. If it cannot, then the community should take steps to change that, or admit that it is incapable of operating autonomously. Kim Bruning 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        We can handle it internally. New programs like Office and oversight have been set up by Jimbo and the developers because it is new, just as the original ArbCom was completely appointed by Jimbo, and the original bureaucrats were selected not elected. Nothing prevents us from taking over this role, why not propose a good procedure for us. ArbCom is charged with selecting new checkusers and oversight people, so the community already has control going forward since we select ArbCom. While Jimbo and the foundation will have a veto, there is no reason we can't run our own selection processes. Brand new processes always seem to be top-down, but they don't need to stay that way. NoSeptember 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        
        "It should be so rare that Brion doesn't need to hand it off." - were you asking him on a daily basis to remove damaging edits from the history of pages? No, you weren't. The oversight permission was created because if admins tried to do the regular "delete and selectively restore" method, the database would lock and the site would crash. The WP:OFFICE rule was created because Jimbo did not have the time to handle all the requests the Foundation Office needed to deal with directly (in cases, deal with immediately), so he devolved powers that were originally with him towards a few he knew already well. It doesn't sound to me as a vote of no confidence. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        As above: the en.wikipedia community should be the one to handle those requests autonomously. It currently does not and can not. Kim Bruning 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some good questions. I think the lack of knowledge of issues could be addressed even by a minority of people who are willing to press candidates to prove their bonafides. On the sensitive information issues, it is a bit too late to deal with the 1000 admins that already exist, many of whom are fairly unknown and thus untrusted by the foundation. The problem seems to have been solved with the new oversight and office functions, is there some way you want to make those functions work better? And how will changing RfA improve these issues? Reform of RfA doesn't quite seem to be the solution to solve the sensitive information issue. NoSeptember 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those functions are a constant reminder of our failure to look after ourselves. No other wiki has them (yet). It's quite embarrasing. I propose we make them obsolete. Kim Bruning 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

English WP is just getting too big to maintain that personal touch it once had. The other WPs will have the same problems when they get to this stage. Some of them already have their share of problems. Do you think these problems could have been avoided at any project that grows to this size? NoSeptember 00:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty bizarre way of looking at it. As I said above RFA was not designed to pick people who could be trusted to carry out the Foundation's business, only those who could be trusted not to screw up too much with shiny admin buttons. It's fundamentally impossible to have a selection process that relies entirely (or primarily) on on-wiki activity while at the same time filtering out the people whose malicious actions are done entirely off-wiki (and usually under a different name).

(Which is not to say, however, that we don't need some way of ferreting out the second group; but it is something that would need to be done primarily off-wiki as well, or through the use of more sophisticated technical measures. In neither case would a change to the RFA process be effective.) Kirill Lokshin 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My admin requirement is the traditional "can be trusted not to blow up the wiki". Admins don't need to conduct the foundations business, but they shouldn't actively do things that could end wikipedia and/or require foundation intervention either, right? Apparently in (some? limited? [1]) situations, the foundation thinks that admins as a group no longer fit even that criterium.

Forget things like 1 featured article, vandalism patrol, and 3 months, 1500 edits. We're failing on the fundamentals here! Kim Bruning 09:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [1] I'm hoping it's only limited. It probably is, but I'd prefer to start taking corrective action early. :-)

I don't really disagree with you; my point is that while the theoretical requirement might be "can be trusted not to blow up the wiki", we cannot generally do any better than "has not shown any signs that he cannot be trusted not to blow up the wiki" in practice. Some people will inevitably manage to game this (see sleeper agent), and any changes to our process shouldn't be motivated by trying to stop them—because we simply can't without doing highly invasive background checks on every candidate. Kirill Lokshin 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that it's that we can't trust our admins. Can we trust all 1000 of our admins (give or take) to adhere to the set guidelines, which most of them see as unbendable policy in my experience (which is probably a good thing...), on how they should use their admin tools under pain of ArbCom? Sure we can. The checks and balances are there; it's extremely bureaucratic and uniform, with little left to good judgement; it works.
However, can we trust all our admins to effectively run the community, as they will end up doing? No, I don't think we can. It's self-deceptive to say that admins are not viewed as higher than normal users. They are high-profile and people go to them with questions and for advice. Many of them are also more aware of what is going on with the community and Wikipedia in general and are contributing to how policy will play out. Is this bad? No, this is good. The people who spend the most time doing stuff will understand it best, and admins are promoted because they have spent that amount of time, and a good many continue to be very active. However, they are also promoted for very stupid reasons, and not promoted for equally stupid ones. The evidence shows that admins do not get along with each other (wheel warring, etc). Other admins are viewed as just any other editor, which divides the community. People tend to make their little groups, which is inevitable, but the admins should be a group also. It shouldn't be Christianity related-editor admins vs admins who edit or identify with other religions, or anything of the sort. Wikipedia doesn't have room or time for partisan politics.
Anyhow, it's my personal belief that one's ability to work with others to the good of the encyclopedia, finding and helping in the finding of compromises for major issues, and working with others to resolve things should be the main criteria for admins. The idea is not that we vote against each other and battle for things; it's that we resolve our differing opinions in a way favorable to everyone. Also, it doesn't take any special skills to 'fight vandals', and quality control is everyone's business, not just admin candidates. --Keitei (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Trust is not a Boolean attribute. Sure admins are trusted, but that doesn't mean they're allowed root access to Wikimedia servers. Admins are just trusted more than most users. If you pick out 852 people that you think meet the highest standards of trust, at least one is going to actually be untrustworthy. That's just a fact of life. And then there's the issue of accounts being hacked; it hasn't happened yet to an admin, to my knowledge, but some of our admins must have weak passwords, and so it's an open possibility. So give admins any tools that are somewhat dangerous in the wrong hands, but useful for a reasonably large percentage of editors to have; don't give them tools that are very dangerous in the wrong hands, or tools that only a couple of people really need to have. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll to determine that polls are evil is evil

Ideal, no, good enough until a better replacement has been worked out, yes. And if the system is broke, start to change it with new ideas, not with the supposed broke ideas to show that it has been broke.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
People are opposed to fixing it, because they claim it ain't broke! Kim Bruning 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it broken? We are promoting ample admins that are basically doing a good job, right? So how is the system broken? FloNight ^talk 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit of an odd man out, because I tend to work through other people, rather than doing things myself. (That's also why I handed in my own admin bit, to remove the temptation to micromanage). But I'm having more and more trouble finding people who are willing to do a good job. Often I find people who will help me in spite of RFA rather than thanks to it. I've hardly ever managed to recruit people off of rfa to do useful work. I've also seen RFA turn down people who are known to be useful. So for me, RFA is not doing much useful work.

That's ok. It's always nice to have fun and interesting clubs like Esperanza or RFA, who don't do anything useful per-se, but who chat with each other and provide a friendly environment, and make their members feel important. Of course, if they actually become harmful to wikipedia, they should be shut down and/or replaced. Kim Bruning 11:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested in the past that we have a list of a half dozen frequently backlogged processes and we ask each admin candidate to promise to adopt one of them to learn it and do work on it once an admin, as a condition of us promoting them. NoSeptember 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent optional question, although it could be a rephrasement of Q1. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but we cannot expect constant contribution from all users. If everyone capable wikified one article, took care of 10 disambig link repairs etc. we could clear all the backlog. Its a good idea, but you also need to figure out how to hold candidates to their promise and if that really is the purpose we are promoting them for (many should really just be using the anti-vandal functions). --Draicone ^(talk) 00:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. Noone is required to do anything, and noone can be forced to keep a promise they make. -Splash - tk 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested we force anything, getting a promise to do a specific task will work with those who keep their promises. With the others, well we learned what they are willing to do to get promoted ;) (useful information). NoSeptember 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Polls to determine that polls are evil is evil are evil

Tony Sidaway 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 20:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What in heaven's good name is this section of this talk page trying to talk about? If it's just an opportunity to say "yeah" or "no" I do/do not like RfA, then we heard it all a hundred times. Last week, probably. As it is, this section meanders randomly in all directions at once, and in no direction at all. -Splash - tk 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll to determine whether the mind-numbing nature if this discussion is sufficient to drive a user to spouse-beating, assuming he/she has one

— Jul. 18, '06 [23:46] <freak|talk>

Poll to determine whether or not this poll has gotten way too frickin' long and should be truncated before someone other than Freakofnurture beats their spouse in frustration over the confusion

In the end, crats can choose to discount the driveby votes anyway.--The ikiroid (talk•desk•Advise me) 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments from the peanut gallery (Archive 66)

Hi! I've been following the discussions on this talk page for some time. As a frequent participator in RfA's, I enjoy seeing others opinions on the RfA process. As such, I'd like weigh in. In terms of the RfA process, I don't really think it's broken at all;

The RfA process is dictated by the community, and as such, if the community thought/thinks there is/was a better format, it would be discussed and consensus would be reached.
Candidates only become administrators once the community reaches a consensus that both the candidate and Wikipedia would do well to give the user administrator status.

I mention these two points to show that all of RfA is community-based, and I have faith that the community is making the right decisions.

Furthermore, in terms of how people "vote" and the reasons given, I believe that each and every participant should be treated with respect and be appreciated for volunteering their valuable time to participate in the process. I don't feel that standards should be called into question or chastised if they are reasonably explained. If a Wikipedian has RfA standards that include a minimum number of edits or length volunteered to the project, it should be respected. Also, specific standards such as those that include featured articles, AfD participation, vandal fighting, user/article talk participation, etc. should also be given due respect. While we might not agree with certain standards, we should recognize one's right to participate in the RfA process as one sees fit.

If a user participates in an RfA with anything but the best of faith, our community-elected 'crats will see the input for what it is and discount it when making the decision as to whether or not consensus has been reached.

Furthermore, as very few administrators have been desysopped, it's reasonable to say that almost all administrators have helped Wikipedia become a better place, and the right people are having successful RfA's.

Also, as adminship is really not that big a deal (and a double-edged sword, at that), I hate to see users become disappointed in themselves and/or the community and leave the project or become jaded on the process because of their or another's RfA. As such, perhaps the WikiProject (which I, personally, am still on the fence about as to it's appropriateness) could actively seek out recent unsuccessful candidates and help them address some of the advice left to them.

Anyways, I just wanted to throw in my two cents. I think the discussions here are productive and enjoyable to watch unfold, and I wanted to comment on what I've seen so far. Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! It's like you read my mind :-) After reading the discussions on the rest of this page, I thought I was alone. Nice to know someone shares the same views as me! —Mets501 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, I missed this little statement, but I've been saying the same things on this very talk page... Hear, hear, indeed! Themindset 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To a point I agree with you that the current system isn't terrible, but one thing that I think is really a shame is people failing because of their inadequacy in something they don't intend to deal with, like a vandal-fighter who could really use the tools failing because of lack of experience in other areas. I've written up my (ever-revolutionary) thoughts on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship/a la carte. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoopydink is making a somewhat circular argument, which can be refuted by simply having one or more community members say they want to change RFA.

/me raises hand.

Hi, I'm me, and I'd like to change it ;-)

Here's the thing though. I think the current RFA format can be made to work, but it does need a lot more commitment than that people are currently showing. I'm thinking on changing that.

Kim Bruning 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Per my 10:40, 9 August 2006 edit of this page, we need an RfA cabal of like-minded editors ;). NoSeptember 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I smell irony... We have been talking about changing RfA for what seems like forever, and yet RfA has remained largely the same for years. If you're looking for a process that's inefficient and broken, this is it – not the RfA process, but the process to change RfA. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bruning, I would suggest going to the Village Pump or forming an official policy proposal to set the wheels in motion. If the community decides that RfA needs to be changed and your proposal is the way to go, then it will be so. I'm certainly open to changes, so if you do decide do follow through, I'll be very eager to see the developments. Cheers and good luck! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA has remained largely the same for "years"? Hmm. Let's try two and a half years ago. Timwi's self-nom read,

Hi. I've been around since June, and I've been a well-behaved user all the way through. :) I don't make ground-breaking new contributions very often, but I make a lot of minor corrections and I revert vandalism. I would like to be able to help with this better, and thus, I am requesting adminship. Thank you for your attention.

and he passed unanimously. Fuzheado's vote on Pakaran's nomination read

Defer. Pakaran is a good contributor, but he's been here for just two months with 270 edits of article pages. Perhaps a *bit* more time only because we should be consistent. WP has rejected other folks for too little experience.

and Pakaran seemingly passed. In fact, there were three opposes in the entire timespan, for 38 admin candidates, as opposed to 317 supports, meaning the support ratio was 99.1%. Some of the nominees got in with fewer than 400 edits. Wik, opposing Pakaran, wryly noted: "Actually I'm helping you, as my opposition will move ten other people to support you!"

RFA hasn't changed for years? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no AWB or scripts back then. 400 edits meant something, especially when you had to press the warm up button to notify the servers that you were about to submit an edit. NoSeptember 08:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the standards; those obviously have changed. I was referring to this process / format. This nomination from July 2004 looks quite similar to a July 2006 nomination. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Timetable (Archive 67)

Argh! This section is hereby speedily closed for being entierly non-encyclopaedic and wasting resources. The responsible malefactor(s) are hereby sentenced to cut down on WP:CP. --Ligulem 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Please do not modify it.

Please could we agree on a, say, weekly timetable for the "OH MY GOD! RfA is so broken it's going bust" hoo-ha? It's getting to be unpredictable when someone will try to have at it in a given week. I propose Thursdays, 15:47-16:00 UTC. -Splash - tk 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Thursdays? I suggest a strawpoll. Marskell 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thursdays are slow for me. They just prevent it from becoming Friday for one more day. I am good with a strawpoll on the precise choice of day, but have no flexibility over the start time. -Splash - tk 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were paying attention you'd have noticed that we actually got some people to think more carefully on requests for adminship today. \o/ Kim Bruning 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but by the time I discovered today's (and I do believe you have doubled up on this week's quota) it was too late. Thus if we timetable it, we can be sure it's coming along on cue. Also, we could then archive the hoo-has after they have passed quietly by and compare over time if anything new ever comes up. PrePS: The first draft of your comment was nicer. There is no accounting for human nature. Post-PrePS: The second draft was less nice than the third. -Splash - tk 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:-P I'll take monday morning. Is that ok? Kim Bruning 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you may be trying to cheat. -Splash - tk 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a more participatory and transparent promotion process (Archive 68)

In the Carnildo RfA, a group of bureaucrats—whose job, according to WP:RfA and WP:CRAT, is to "review the discussion to see whether there is a general community consensus for promotion" and grant administrator access "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community"—resolved, in backroom discussion, to promote the candidate in a decision which makes no mention of consensus, and only references community opinion to say that while many users oppose Carnildo's adminship, he is being promoted anyway. The ensuing uproar shows that many users were shocked and upset by this highly irregular decision, and by the lack of transparency which led to it. The following suggestion is an attempt to limit further disturbances by making the promotion process more participatory and transparent.

My proposal is to reduce the adminship-related role of bureaucrats and to transfer as much as possible of their responsibilities to the community. Bureaucrats currently have a two-step job at RfA:

1. Gauge consensus for promotion.
2. If and only if consensus is present, promote.

Step 2 requires a technical ability (Special:Makesysop) not available to the community at large. But there is no technical reason why the community cannot perform Step 1. There are a variety of ways it might do so, and proposals are welcome. Here's one: an RfA runs for seven days, as now. After that time, anyone may add a header indicating a result: either consensus or no consensus. If anyone objects, they can remove it; if anyone objects to that, they can put it back. If necessary, discussion continues, shifting from gathering consensus to gauging consensus. When the header stabilizes (perhaps by staying up for a certain length of time) then a bureaucrat may close the RfA with that result. Consensus at RfA would thus resemble consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia, which is signalled by stability of content. That way, everyone can help to determine the result, discussion is public, the community makes the tough call of gauging consensus, and bureaucrats simply implement the result specified to them. But that's just one way for the community to perform Step 1; I'm open to others. Tim Smith 04:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer having users who have been designated by the community to gauge consensus, because they are trusted. Reaching community consensus on what the consensus is sounds like a recipe for divisive edit warring and chaos. RfA, like AfD, has people to gauge consensus precisely because the header wouldn't stabilize in controversial cases—ever. So I like the 'crats as they are, even when they (very) occasionally make decisions different than I would've if I were in their place. -- SCZenz 04:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If a case is so controversial that the header does not stabilize, that's a sign that there is no consensus for the adminship. Hopefully, that fact would be recognized as the discussion drags on, lending increasing support to the "no consensus" side, which would eventually prevail, unless its advocates are so few in number that they are impeding an obvious consensus, in which case they would finally be overwhelmed for disrupting Wikipedia.

Although administrators and bureaucrats are trusted at the time they gain their positions, there is no guarantee that they will be trusted thereafter, due to the lack of a community-based recall process. It is especially dangerous to rely on bureaucrats to gauge community consensus at RfA when (1) they issue decisions which make no mention of consensus and override precedent without public consultation, (2) they engage in backroom discussion to which the community is not privy, (3) their decisions to promote are irreversible by community-based recall, and (4) they themselves are not recallable. A trust-building first step would be for all bureaucrats to join Category:Administrators open to recall, and I encourage them to do so. Tim Smith 11:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

At first, I would be inclined to agree with that, but there a few problems that, off the top of my head, would be created. The current system keeps the complexity of the operation very low, whereas the system you describe above relies heavily on discussion, and is much more complicated than the current role of the community. This would often end with nothing more than a back and forth argument with no definite concensus. Also, a community concensus is often not going to be a good indicator of how well someone would be at their admin abilities. The voting is open to anyone, so people that are good acquaintences may blindly trust the candidate, while bitter "enemies" will oppose them at every turn. This will lead to more qualified candidates not able to become admins, less unqualified candidates that can become admins. Bureaucrats serve a very important role in that they provide a buffer for this sort of polarized debate. They are also trusted by others, so their choices can be trusted; this is not so with a simple community concensus where anybody has a say. Markovich292 06:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

At least one other Wikipedia has a straight up-or-down vote. There is a straight vote for members of ArbCom and the Board: why not for admins? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because voting (at least for last year, I haven't paid much attention this year) for members of ArbCom and the Board is enforced technically: only one vote per account, with suffrage requirements for each account. It's hard enough even to put a suggested minimum suffrage in the RFA page without raising a stink, let alone place technical enforcement on each RFA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to say that ArbCom is a "straight" vote. Last time it was floated as a "JW picks, community endorse"; eventually it went ahead on a basis that appeared to be essentially, "community votes, JW vetoes". In eventual application, it transpired to be "community votes, JW adds 'captain's picks'." Alai 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your idea would be great if we used the dictionary definition of "concensus" (everyone agreeing, or at least agreeing not to go against what everyone else wants), but we don't, we actually use a definition closer to "supermajority", with a bit of uneven weighting of votes. If we were aiming for everyone accepting a decision, your idea would work (although, it wouldn't really be needed, as it's obvious when everyone agrees because people stop speaking), but when we're actually aiming for a supermajority it won't work because there will always be some people who disagree with the community decision and they'll keep changing the header. --Tango 12:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

extending time for community consensus

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)

Proposal for new process (Archive 69)

I've made a initial draft about new process at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship process. _→AzaToth 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Phewee we sure have had a lot of RfA reform proposals of late :) (not that yours is any worse/better than the others, mind). --Durin 20:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I felt that all recent proposals was lost in the talk pages, so I thought it was better if we all could create a "final" proposal. _→AzaToth 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Final????? --Durin 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Geogre/RFA-Derby (Archive 69)

This could be interesting regarding the perennial RFA brainstorming. Opinions welcome. >Radiant< 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Trial admin

I tossed this idea at WP:RFAP and user:Geogre/RFA-Derby - if a person pulls between 65-75% of support, then why not let him/her have the tools for say, 30 days? This could especially be useful in dealing with the requests of ex-admins like Carnildo and Chacor. During this period:

He will be monitored by normal users as well as other admins and bureaucrats. Admin actions such as abusive blocks or deletions can be repaired, so its not like letting a wild animal loose.
The RfA remains open, with people encouraged to ask questions and keep interviewing the fellow.
Allow others to give him tips and advice.

I think the final call is not another vote, but the expression of any serious complaint regarding the editor's behaviour in the 30 days. Perhaps in this latter way we can avoid the possibility that some editors would oppose just because they don't like some of his/her decisions. Rama's arrow 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To add, the general community and not just a couple of admins may act as "mentors" or watchdogs for such candidates. Rama's arrow 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible to reserve 1-2 buttons from the candidate until he/she has earned the community's trust over a longer period of time. For example, if the main point of discussion is concern over the candidate's attitude on AfDs, reserve the power to delete and ask him/her to be consistently active for 60-90 days on AfDs, while also keeping the RfA open. Just chewin' the fat anyway, Rama's arrow 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As with every other idea for RfA reform that's been proposed over the last few months (and there's been many ideas), there's no way to evaluate whether this idea is any use or not. It might be great. It might be bad. I again state that without there being any serious effort to discern what it is exactly that we expect RfA to achieve and any assessment of the current process' shortcomings, any effort to 'reform' RfA is going to be a shot in the dark. What makes this process any better than the umpteen ideas that have been suggested over the last few months? Nobody knows because nobody's done any foundational pre-evaluations. --Durin 01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you suggest we do foundational pre-evaluations of any useful sort? We're listening. --tjstrf 01:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, and I feel bad that I've not been able to dedicate time to this. I've said several times that this is the kind of work that needs to be done, but have yet to lay out a roadmap as to how it can be accomplished. It's a bit time intensive, and I've not had the time to do it. The best direction I can point you to is any knowledge of business planning practices. Or, alternatively, using problem solving mechanisms such as 8D (Eight Disciplines Problem Solving).
I'd venture to say that the majority of us feel that RfA is broken. If we do not do any sort of disciplined process to craft a system intended to fix RfA, we will have no way of knowing if it can in fact work. It's like a bad component for the Space Shuttle. Alright, perhaps we can all agree its bad. But, if we don't understand why its bad and build a replacement we're quite likely to build a replacement that doesn't solve the problem.
It's fun, even easy to come up with alternative methods for how RfA can work. These methods often enough address issues that the proponent(s) feel are wrong with RfA. But, everytime that I've seen a system brought forth as the next saving grace of RfA I've been able to rapidly come up with fundamental problems (from my view) that it does not address. Hope this helps. If I can get the time in the future to work on this, I will. --Durin 13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what kind of pre-evaluations do we need to do? I didn't mind throwing this idea into the mix - I think Grenavitar once proposed a "limited administrator," which could be a sister proposal of this idea. This plan, IMO helps resolve the distinct problem of an RfA with only 73% or 69% approval. This idea allows the candidate to improve without facing rejection, and provides a comfortable margin of discretion for the nomination to clear nitpicky and frivolous oppose/support issues. Rama's arrow 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

One issue which folks raise is of RfAs being votes or discussions. Its not only a question of the way RfAs start and are conducted, but how they are decided. If you really want this to be a discussion, you need to have more than just a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, which is not workable if the candidate is to take in criticism, improve and serve WP. Rama's arrow 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On the possibility of whether a candidate would simply mask his/her behaviour to gain approval, I'd say its more likely to be effective in the current process. Rama's arrow 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to pretend to be a good admin for 30 days and then turn evil, so it would help with determining trustworthyness. It might help with determining competancy, though. Removing certain abilities from certain admins would require a lot of reprogramming, and it probably isn't worth that. --Tango 11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Two more RfA proposals (Archive 69)

Seeing as RfA reform seems to be the hot topic at the moment, here's two pretty-much opposite proposals I've come up with. As always, comments are welcome. It would be interesting to see which one the community prefer. I'm not proposing either of these to be implemented for the moment, only to serve as a possible starting point for new ideas (an RfA brainstorm, if you like). --ais523 14:15, 22 September 2006 (U T C)

Durin has correctly observed several times that we keep trying to reform the RfA process without knowing exactly where the problem lies. In any case, I think to do effective brainstorming, you should observe the complexities of RfAs and the overall place of admins in WP. Rama's arrow 17:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

From the WP:VIE point of view

RfA works similarly to now, except that supporting comments are not allowed; only criticisms. Anyone (the candidate or anyone else) can respond to a criticism. Duplicate criticisms are not allowed and can be struck by anyone. At the end of the RfA discussion period, the closing 'crats (preferably more than one, as this has a lot of discretion) decide whether each criticism has been met successfully, and if there are no problems, the candidate is promoted. This way, the '<200 MediaWiki Talk' criticisms are ignored, and the 'is a vandal' criticisms would block a promotion no matter how many sockpuppets are in support. --ais523 14:15, 22 September 2006 (U T C)

This gives a lot of power to crats, but crats are meant to be trustworthy, so that might not be an issue. "No duplicate critisms" could be problematic - is "Has less than 1000 edits" the same as "Has less than 2000 edits"? Are those the same as "Has less than 500 main space edits"? Prehaps the standard reasons (overall edits, distribution of edits, time since signing up) should be included in the template from the start and people just discuss them without anyone having to make the critism in the first place. Any other critisms about edit counts would be immeadiately struck through. --Tango 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem of sockpuppetry is at least not a particular problem facing RfA. Admins (commonly) do a good job in tracking such cases down before they do damage. Rama's arrow 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This idea is lightyears ahead of the other one. I don't want to see Wikipedia turn into a political jokefest. B-crats are our most trusted users, and they DESERVE to be given such enhanced responsibility. Furthermore, this system makes those elaborate "200.5 wikipedia talk space edits, 308.9383483883838383 mediwiki space edits, etc" voting patterns look like absolute tomfoolery, because b-crats aren't going to be swayed by such....superficial criticism. It brings focus only to the issues that matter, while still keeping the admins in a very positive, role-modeling light. — Deckill e r 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This profoundly doesn't work. What happens when I say "has abused the tools in the past, shown no understanding of why that use of the tools was problematic, thus I do not trust the user not to abuse the tools again". Whatcha gonna do? Tell me who unearthily foolish I must be to disagree with the bureaucrat on the point? -Splash - tk 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is more related to bureaucrat judgement than voting. If, for example, you were to mention such abuse and cite some alarming diffs, perhaps late in the RfA, then it would be best for the bureaucrat to disregard a strong majority of support in light of the evidence. That is, to evaluate the reasons of your comment, not to value it as only one among several equal opinions in a strict vote. —Centrx→talk • 05:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be a problem. The criteria themselves can and should be debated beforehand, and agreed upon for this to work. Meaning, that there would be certian criteria required for an RFA to suceed, certian criteria that would require rejection, and some things that would require a full discussion and debate with a strong consensus. This would give the 'crats reasonable discretion, while leaving difficult cases to the community. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible process for this:

User nominated.
Administrator, 'crat, or other trusted user reviews that any standing qualifications are met.
RFA is posted with the following text. * User:Example has been nominated for, and will be granted adminship on or after 23:59, 27 November 2006, barring any WP:RFA/Process#Objections/signifigant objections by the community.
During the week or so the RFA is posted, evidence and objections may be presented. This will be either evidence of disqualification, strong objections, or responses to either. The same objection may not be presented twice on the same evidence.
If valid evidence is presented that the RFA is disqualified, the RFA is immeadiately withdrawn as a disqualified outcome.
If strong objections are presented, then depending on the strength of the objection, and guidelines created by the community, the RFA is either rejected, or sent for a full debate much like the current process.
If no signifigant objection is made within the week the RFA is posted, the user gains adminship.

There are obviously some things we could tweak with this so that it provides the same safeguards over our trust - possibilities include:

Multiple nominators, all of whom have to be in good standing.
Minimum requirements.
Guidelines for when to require a full debate - for example, with previously desysopped users (assuming they have been cleared to reapply).
Guidelines for what constitutes grounds for rejection.
Possible safety-valves such as ability to call a full debate through petition?

Anyway, this definantely needs some work, but the whole idea is really worth pursuing. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting how much more support that this is getting compared to the rival suggestion below; maybe it is time to move towards a less voting-based solution. --ais523 15:59, 23 September 2006 (U T C)

One thing you could do, as I mentioned above, would be implement a means by which a vote could be forced through a petition - as an example of how this might work:

10 users agree that the nominee should not be made an administrator.
The closing date of the RFA is extended to a date 7 days from the filing (or certification) of the petition.
A support/oppose poll is taken, with a simple majority able to deny the request for adminship.
If at the end of the RFA period, 50% or more of the votes are to oppose, the RFA fails as "rejected by the community"

I say 50% here because we'd already have other means of opposition, various firm and not so firm grounds to refuse - the option to petition for denial is there to be a safety valve, and not there just as a way to continue the current process - once we have set guidelines for who is and isn't qualified to be an administrator, we should rarely have to use this, and for a reason to truely be strong enough to refuse adminship, but not be included already in the guidelines should almost never happen. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

From the WP:VINE point of view

RfA works similarly to now, except that RfAs never close. If a candidate has more than 65% support continuously for a week, they are sysopped (deliberately low percentage). If a candidate has less than 50% support continuously for a week, they are desysopped (so this has elements of WP:RFDA too). 'Crats can strike out sockpuppet or bad-faith votes, but nothing else. --ais523 14:15, 22 September 2006 (U T C)

I would have to disagree with this idea in particular. Unpopular decisions are hallmarks of leadership. Aside from that, why should admin-editors be forced to ignore the job of building and maintaining an encyclopedia and act like politicians? Rama's arrow 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the RfA would end when one of the boundaries were crossed, allowing any unpopular actions to take place after that point. This has the advantage that it allows more time when the issues are not worked through quickly. Stephen B Streater 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rama's arrow, this has too much politics in it to be workable. Every de-adminship proposal I've seen has drawn concerns about mob rule - increased politicking by the candidate doesn't seem to be the answer. I don't see where SBS's comment follows from the example, as it seems to explicitly leave the RfA open indefinitely. In a perfect world, this would be a good idea, and admins having a talk subpage to collate criticisms might be a good informal implementation of this, but...nah. -- nae'blis 18:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I had assumed the example was more sensible ;-) I'd support the RfA ending when it was withdrawn or decisive, and the editor not becoming an Admin unless there was a consensus to promote. Stephen B Streater 09:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very firmly opposed to this. First, we don't overthrow unpopular (or briefly unpopular) government leaders — even John Locke would dislike this system. Second, I agree with what Rama said - it is important for leaders and people with special tools to be bold, even if they are unpopular for a week or two. Overall, it's a concept that would require micromanagement, "vote sorting", and other problems. Extending the time would not really change anything; Wikipedia is not a political system, and the administrative position is not political. I WOULD support evaluations every six months; if the evaluation is very negative, a second "vote" can be opened. In the workplace, employees are evaluated every few months, and if they are seen to be performing poorly, their fate is determined by the management. — Deckill e r 01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the RFDA element. Adminship should only be terminated "for-cause" and the current systems have enough safeguards - either for actions so grevious and destructive that they require emergency action by a steward, or for disruptive behavior that results in arbcom action. This allows admins to perform their duties effectively without having to worry about lynchmobs showing up whenever they enforce the copyright or verifiability policies. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually... further thought here. RFDA needs to be discussed seperately. Attaching it to any other proposal here seems like trying to sneak it in. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Define the problems first? (Archive 71)

Split into a subpage temporarily to keep the discussion readable. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See also the very extensive discussions here User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA as RFC (Archive 71)

In response to a comment that a lot of the proposals are starting to look like RFC, I started on a mockup of what an RFA modeled after RFC would look like here. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Some RfAs do look like RfCs, but not all. Perhaps the RfC bit would be better suited to the talk page to allow for the more usual simple format where applicable. Stephen B Streater 09:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that defeats the purpose. RFC combines structured discussion with simple endorsement "voting" (I hate that word, but I'll call it that for sake of argument) of which statements apply. This would make it a lot clearer to see what the issues at work are, and a lot more readable, while being less vote-like. It would increase visibility for minor viewpoints, but it would also keep their relative strength in check. Most importantly, the RFC style helps keep temperatures down, by helping to keep discussion from progressing past debate into heated arguments and disruptive disputes, simply by keeping threaded discussions to a minimum on the RFC page itself. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? I'm somewhat inclined to post it on VPP shortly. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just the same objections I've raised for every other proposal that's been brought forth here of late; it's a shot in the dark unless substantial work is done to evaluate where we are and where we want to be with RfA. It's just as likely to cause harm as it is to make things better. --Durin 13:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need some evaluation here before we make sweeping change. I don't see how this can make things any worse though. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It solves my main problems with RfA (the 'support' votes rarely have much content, and can drown out a valid 'oppose' vote, and spurious opposes happen based on things like unrealistic standards). --ais523 09:56, 3 October 2006 (U T C)

It might solve your perceived problems with RfA but may not address an array of other perceived problems by other users. This is one of the reasons why careful evaluation is needed. --Durin 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Careful evaluation is needed, both of the problems and the proposed solutions. However, the posts here, and elsewhere seem to indicate a general agreement that we do have problems - so allowing the current status quo to continue through inaction and infighting could be just as bad. We need to form some sort of plan here of how to evaluate both the problems and their proposed solutions, and make changes accordingly. Right now, we have a process that's turning rapidly into a mockery of our principles including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-RfA thoughts about past RfA Reform suggestions (Archive 71)

Well, my first attempt at RfA has finished. I learned quite a few things (as I hoped I might).
And with that in mind, let me response to several of the suggestions on this page (including the last 2 archives), in no particular order:

I think the support/neutral/oppose system works well - though I would list them in that order, rather than support/oppose/neutral, and add a General comments section to the bottom (if the section becomes over-long, it can always be moved to the talk page, when needed). And helpful editors can always move accidentally mis-placed votes. I think the Comments section at the top (below the questions) should be for the nom's comments, and direct responses to them.
(Inserting a reply to this point here) What's the reasoning for switching the positions of the neutral and oppose sections? They seem fine as they are. Picaroon9288 20:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Following the 1, 0, -1 format. Which is also used on some polls. It also rather clearly highlights that a neutral vote is "between" support and oppose. I was also re-affirming that these words would seem to be better than encourage/discourage or approve/disapprove; and that I think neutral should stay as an option. - jc37 23:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit counters - In my opinion, most of the other tools I have seen, have not accurately described my edits. Though I have no idea what criteria they use, I presume neither do most other wikipedia editors. The following 3 are exceptions:
- Mathbot's tool for edit summaries seems fairly straight forward.
- I like interiot's counting tool (I even placed a version of it on my user page). It's just a simple edit counting tool, for those who wish it, with no judgements about those edits.
- I strongly liked: "Random diffs from last 1000 edits (with ais523's edit counter):". (though not the adjoining edit count tool, for the same reasons as above, though I think the breakdown was better than most). I think giving random diffs on the nom's talk page is a great way to "nudge" editors to do a little research on the request. Is there any way to increase to the last 2000 edits (presuming the user has that many)?
  (Inserting a reply to this point here) Yes, I can change it to the last 2000 trivially; the diff-generator is quite timeconsuming (it takes about 1 minute with 1000 edits, and will take me about 4 minutes to run when checking 2000 edits), but I'll update it as such. I've stopped counting all the edits on RfAs for probably the same reasons as you disagree with them. --ais523 12:40, 5 October 2006 (U T C)
While I support the idea that a bureaucrat should be able to suggest that an RfA stay open longer than the 7 days, in order to more clearly determine concensus, I strongly oppose leaving an RfA open for longer than 2 weeks. I think could create a hardship for the nominee. During the whole time, I felt like there were things I couldn't comment on (such as this page), since my RfA was ongoing. (Whether it is true or not, it was how I felt.) The first day I only finished up what I was working on, and pretty much nothing else, though after a few days, I decided to continue on as if the RfA wasn't there, and just avoid this talk page.
I have to admit, I was thinking a lot about my "block proposal" on this page, when seeing what another editor called a "pileup" concerning my response to a question about blocking. I think we should probably re-visit that discussion.
That said, I am not against the adding of "extra questions". I think they can be potentially useful.

And two general proposals:

1.) That bureaucrats may ask any commenter to further explain their vote (like dropping a note on the commenter's talk page), and that bureaucrats may remove/discount unexplained votes, at their discretion. I believe that they already have this ability, but I think it should be re-affirmed, in order to re-affirm that this leans more towards concensus, rather than democratic voting. (I am thinking of several situations/examples on CfD when I suggest this.) I think that it should be limited to bureaucrats, though, to prevent possible harrassment or abuse.

2.) I think the "friendly notice"/canvassing issue should be directly discussed. Right now, it's "murkiness" of definition doesn't seem like a "good idea" to me. I think we should default to WP:SPAM, since those guidelines are fairly clear. People can still oppose on the grounds of advertising, if they wish, since that it their perogative, but the suggestion that it's a violation of "policy", in cases where it isn't, should be discouraged.

I have one further proposal but it's going to take me a bit longer to type up, so here's this, at least, for now. - jc37 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In my proposal to keep it open, I only suggested keeping it open if there was a chance of it going either way - in other words, require clear consensus or a hopeless deadlock to close an RFA. The nominee should retain the option to withdraw, so this shouldn't be an issue - if they don't like how its going, they can back off. I'd suggest that 'crats retain the ability to close a particlarly caustic RFA under WP:SNOW also. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution (Archive 71)

There are many ways to fix RfA (some introduces much worse problems). If the problem is too many failed RfAs the simplest way to fix it is to change the requires consensus from 75-80% to 70-75%. The number 75% is not set in stone and many controversial fails were in 70-75% range. abakharev 04:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That would work, yes. >Radiant< 10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing it to 70-80% would be better, otherwise you'll get complaints from people that don't want 75-80% RFAs to automatically succeed. --Tango 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If this were a problem, then that might be a solution. It isn't a problem, or at least, the rate of success isn't a problem, so there's no need to change it. Splash - tk 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The overall number of admins created isn't the entire problem. We are promoting enough, but the process by which we are doing it in overly political, and results in some users that would benefit wikipedia by having the tools not being able to get them. Take a look at the "define the problems" section above (which is currently sitting on a subpage) - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we go forward with reform? (Archive 71)

As demonstrated by discussions at User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems, and elsewhere, I believe than one thing that we can determine consensus exists on is that there are broad problems with the Request for Adminship process, and related processes.

I think that the next logical step is to try to reach some agreement on what problems exist, and which of those need to be fixed.

After that, then maybe we can start looking at how to fix the problems that we can agree need solutions, and hopefully, anywhere between a couple weeks to a couple months from now, we'll emerge from this with a process that works better than the current one.

I guess the real question here is how do we go forward with this in a way that respects community consensus, but is able to move forward at a reasonable pace? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re going forward with reform: no, first we need at least another two years of interminable yapping, ludicrous fingering pointing, excruciating non sequiturs, and other flaming bullshit. Only then should we consider reform. Marskell 09:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

See below. — Werdna talk criticism 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the way to go is to make a clear proposal and see if it gets support. This has been tried before and the previous proposals did not get clear support, but a well-thought-out proposal might. Read this talk page for suggestions :) >Radiant< 12:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, what makes RfA hellish? The ~~voters~~ discussers! Unless you come up with a system that keeps them locked in a closet, brain washes them, or allows for fairness between both sides (hinthint) the problem won't be fixed. H ig hway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree that "we can determine consensus exists on is that there are broad problems with the Request for Adminship process". Just asserting this does not make it so. I see a few editors who consistently complain that RfA is broken, but that's not the same as consensus that its broken or how it might be broken. Show consensus has been achieved rather than simply asserting it. Gwernol 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to get bogged down in bureaucratic bullshit like that. If no consensus that RfA is broken exists, this will show on the proposals for reform. — Werdna talk criticism 14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What "bureaucratic bullshit" do you think I suggested? I simply ask that those who want to change the current process to justify their complaint that its broken. That's not adding "bureaucratic bullshit", its simply asking that we don't change somthing unless we have evidence that it needs to change. Generally we like verifiablity on Wikipedia rather than someone's point of view. I'd also ask you to remain civil. Thanks, Gwernol 14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An apple is an apple in the way bureaucratic bullshit is bureaucratic bullshit. This is clearly a discussion between people who want reform. There's no use hammering in and making them prove that RfA is broken, because they all believe it is. If you'd bother to read the previous tens of pages of comments, you'd note that it presents a significant number of problems with RfA. — Werdna talk criticism 14:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have read most of the previous comments on this subject, and participated in several of the specific discussions. If you want to exclude people who don't believe RfA is broken, then yes all the participants will indeed believe that RfA is broken. Well done on excluding meaningful debate, but not so well done on actually helping Wikipedia. I'm sorry that core Wikipedia principles like WP:CONSENSUS WP:V and WP:NPOV are "bureaucratic bullshit" to you, I had thought more of you. Please stop assuming bad faith on my part and actually show what the problem is. If you can't clearly state the problem then your fix will likely be wrong. Gwernol 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You appear to here be requiring a standard of proof you have admitted elsewhere (WT:PRO) does not in fact exist. If you could clear up this apparent anomaly, we can advance the discussion.

But here's a starter for you: what on earth relevance does a certain number of featured articles have to whether or not a contributor is likely to go batshit with the tools? - David Gerard 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Verifiability and NPOV come into this. I do believe that the discussion here is amongst those who want reform. If there is no consensus that RfA is broken, this will show up on discussions for individual proposals. — Werdna talk criticism 14:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol, This is more than a blind assertion. There's been a pretty consistant pattern of discussion that there are things wrong with the process. What is in question still, is what exactly those problems are. Given the number of users that have raised issues with this process, in the last year alone, I'd say this is a safe conclusion. If there's disagreement as to whether or not we currently have a problem, we can back up a little bit, and come to agreement on that first. However, if the process was working as it should, I seriously doubt we'd have as many people finding fault with it as we do now. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not require a vote, or straw poll to prove. If there's some contention here as to whether or not the process is broken, we can discuss that further before we move on, however, as pointed out, we can determine this just as easily as we are identifying problems, as if the process isn't broken, we won't be able to come to an agreement on any specific problems with the process.

With that said, if you insist on further debate as to the necessity of this discussion, we could do that, but the futility of such a debate should be obvious - do we really have to debate on whether or not to have a debate? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"RfA is broken" equates approximately with "RfA does not always yield the result I think it should". Life is tough like that. Perhaps it is life that is broken. I do not agree that replacing a free, open and dynamic process with something else is likely to be an improvement, and nor do I agree that failing to promote everyone that Editor X thinks should be an admin is implicit of failure in the process. You don't always get the answer you want. I also do not suppose that the way we have RfA is necessarily optimal. But I have not seen any suggestion (ever) that would actually improve on the way it runs at the moment. People suggest hard quotas of time/edits: they are obviously wrong because if you're one edit or one day below the quota it just looks silly. People suggest obliterating the support/oppose sections. People will write support and oppose anyway. People suggest delaying !voting for a few days: it'll happen anyway, just a few days later.

People further discredit the notion of RfA-reform by branding a gradual process "bureaucratic bullshit" (they also discredit themselves), and by try to force, by violence, change on RfA of their own design without warning or discussion (see earlier in the year). If those who would reform would just try doing it nicely, being friendly rather than critical, polite rather than rude and collegial rather than condescending, then this would undoubtedly lend grease to the wheels they wish to turn. -Splash - tk 16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You said "But I have not seen any suggestion (ever) that would actually improve on the way it runs at the moment.". Open your eyes and look up, I can see three at least. — Werdna talk criticism 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My main opposition to the present process is the ever-raising bar that has little or nothing to do with the powers an admin is granted. "Applicant must have been rocketed from Krypton as child. Show spaceship for nomination." It fails the giggle test - David Gerard 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. I about dropped my glass while reading that. : ) - jc37 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an improvement at least. If the main problem is the 'standards', such as they are, then solutions to people having standards have to be found. Hmmmm. -Splash - tk 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So how do we go about determining which problems are "real"? I'm not even worried about solutions quite yet, since it would be best to know what we think we are trying to fix first. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This appeals to the engineer in me quite a lot. If that can be pinpointed, in a better way than the ridiculous poll below, then we/you will be making process. -Splash - tk 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with ER (Archive 71)

I think a rather simple solution to several of the issues would be to merge this page with WP:ER, and to require that all nominees go through an Editor review sometime within the 3 months prior to requesting adminship. The length of the review would be up to the editor being reviewed, from 5 - 14 days (to be declared at the start of the ER). RfA/RfB would remain a constant 7 days.

This would:

make the user more known to those who watch this page.
give the user more idea what might be necessary for a successful RfA
nudge those who watch this page to participate more in editor review (it has a lot of names which have been there for longer than 2 weeks, most of which have 0-2 comments.)
this also can act as a "trial run" for RfA for those who are curious, since the same editors who comment on RfAs would be commenting on the editor reviews.
It would help "catch" minor mistakes which can cripple an RfA out of the box.
Helps "weed out" WP:SNOW situations before they even become RfAs

etc etc etc.

This is a simple step that acts very proactively, and I just can't see how this would not be helpful.

I also suggest that "Editor review" (or Wikipedian editor review, perhaps) be the page name. It would give a better sense to what's being done here. WP:RFA abbreviation (and variations) should then become a dab page pointing to this page, and to arbcom. - jc37 16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see: this page for a quick example of how it might look. (I de-transcluded the introductory statements, since they would have to be edited, anyway.) - jc37 17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Very good suggestion. I can't think what might be wrong with it... :) --Alex (Talk) 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, however if a user has already gone through an editor review, I don't see why we should make them do it again.

Also, the RfA process is tedious as it is, and this would add more to the confusion. We have WP:SNOW for a reason. I highly doubt that this proposal is going to stop the people who register and the first thing they do is open an RfA. I oppose this change. - Mike | trick or treat 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that after I posted this, look at the change in the intro. - jc37 16:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds okay, but if we're going to do this, we should shorten the actual RfA period so that potential admins aren't on the edge of their seats for weeks. - Mike | trick or treat 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The RfA would still be 7 days (just as it is now). The ER doesn't keep anyone "on the edge of their seats", as far as I know... However, making an additional modification above. - jc37 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Making ER compulsory for admin requests has been suggested before, and it wasn't very popular because it means people who are obviously going to get accepted almost unanimously (can you use WP:SNOW to close an RFA as succeeded? Would need to be done carefully...) would have to waste their time and other's time going through ER. --Tango 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "strongly suggest"? - jc37 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted myself (though we can put "strongly suggest" back if there is a concensus). I don't think that in an all-or-nothing situation of giving "the mop", that 5 extra days should be considered a "hardship" or "wasting everyone's time". Though I think I understand your concerns. - jc37 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to merge RfA into ER and then say ER must come before RfA because then RfA doesn't exist anymore. If you merge the two, you will simply move the problems you perceive with RfA into ER, and people will soon be complaining of how foolish all the dissenters are over there instead of over here. -Splash - tk 16:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. First of all, there are other uses for ER. And, as I noted above, this would give that concept more "traffic" from interested editors. (I know that I knew about RfA long before I knew about editor review.) I also note that even in my own RfA, there were editors who suggested that I have an editor review, apparently not knowing that I had (and still have) one listed : ) - Second, the "dissenters over there" aren't making a binding decision for anything. For ER, it's just an opinion, and no matter what the result of the ER, the user is still free to try for an RfA anytime within 3 months after doing the editor review. - jc37 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(ec) As I once explained, adminship is divided into three parts. Before, during and after nomination. Just like when an article goes first to peer review, then to good article, and finally featured candidate, the same way could be said about editors. I see an editor review independant because people can request a review anytime, any number of times, without losing chances of becoming an administrator. However, the RFA is a bit tighter, and someone who requests adminship more than once in a couple of months is likely to get his second request closed per the SNOW clause. -- ReyBrujo 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sertain what this has to do with the suggestion to merge the two pages. I'm not suggesting that we merge the two processes, if that's what you're thinking? - jc37 17:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this mess? -- ReyBrujo 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, that review is about "getting something" (An article to receive a certain "status"). ER is not about anything but requesting info/insight/comments. As I mentioned above, please see: this page, for an example of what I mean. - jc37 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, transclude all the current reviews, all the current RFA and the current RFB, and let's see how the page looks like. I kind of like the idea of making ER more public, but the resulting page would be just long to browse. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Your concern is about page length? Well consider that the majority of the names listed on WP:ER currently are well longer than 5 days. Of the 65 (?!) listed on WP:ER: if you stripped out the ones longer than 2 weeks, you are left with 26. If you strip out those longer than 1 week, you are left with 13. And consider that many of those may declare that they only want their ER to be 5 or 7 days in duration. So no, I don't think it would be "too long". Do you still? - jc37 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the latest opinion was that we should archive requests older than 1 month only at ER. -- ReyBrujo 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's partially because it's not a high traffic page, whereas this page is. I think 2 weeks would be plenty. - jc37 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Having people jump through one more hoop (ER, in this case) before getting the adminship bit is too big a burden I believe. And the arguments for doing that (avoiding WP:SNOW, etc) don't sound compelling enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(ec'ed note)And it's way more than just WP:SNOW concerns. I seriously think that potential nominees should have the opportunity to hear opinions from the same people who typically comment on RfA, in an editor review. Does anyone here need me to list out the many reasons why? And how this can help remove quite a bit of the uncertainty/tension from the whole process? - jc37 17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is two proposals, I guess. 1.) merge the 2 pages. 2.) require (strongly suggest) that requesters for adminship go through ER first. You've stated that you disagree with the second, what is your thought about the first? - jc37 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging ER and RfA is not a good idea. The RfA is much more rigid and much more stressful (for good reasons!) and importing all that into ER which (I believe) is meant to see if a person is a good editor only (no superpowers here) is not a good idea, I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that I need to clarify that I'm not suggesting a merge of the process, but of the pages. "ER" would be under a different subsection than RfA, but just transcluded on the same page. - jc37 17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea, I don't see a consensus that RFA is broken enough to indicate a specific fix for starters. This just further bloats a process that has already suffered enough..and I don't know what good it does to judge an editor that knows they are being watched. The only effective way to judge a edit history is to go through the contribs. Why do we want to make people go through 2 processes here? Rx StrangeLove 18:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I think that this is a good idea, whether we consider RfA "broken" or not. And technically, we're all being watched : ) Also, There are many things on wikipedia that require more than one process (or a multi-faceted process). Not to mention, that just because you ask for an ER, doesn't necessarily mean that you plan on an RfA. I know that originally when I posted mine, I had no plans at that time for an immediate RfA. Also, note the 3 month allowable lag time. This allows an editor time between an ER and deciding about an RfA, in order to work on things that editors may have had concerns with. I see this as a positive suggestion, ways in which we can help each other become better editors. - jc37 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's no consensus that RFA is broken then why are we trying to fix it? And maybe we are all being watched, but not in the direct context of an RFA run... and what does strongly suggest mean anyway? If people don't, will it be held against them? Who's strongly suggesting it? If it's not mandatory (which it shouldn't be), then it's just more instruction creep on the page. Rx StrangeLove 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, in reverse order:

"and what does strongly suggest mean anyway? If people don't, will it be held against them? Who's strongly suggesting it? If it's not mandatory (which it shouldn't be), then it's just more instruction creep on the page." - Well, personally, I prefer "require". I only suggested "strongly suggest" due to comments here. Note that it's no different than the "strongly suggested" reading of WP:GRFA. - jc37 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that GRFA doesn't put an official looking "list" on the RFA page... Rx StrangeLove 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"official looking list"? I don't understand the comment. - jc37 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A list of names on a (official) process page. Rx StrangeLove 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And your concern about this is what? (Please pardon me if I'm appearing dense, but I honestly don't understand, and can only guess at your implication.) - jc37 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"And maybe we are all being watched, but not in the direct context of an RFA run..." - When you submit an ER, I would presume that you would undergo scrutiny. The moment you run, I would presume that anything you do will undergo scrutiny. You make it out as if there is something to greatly fear about editors who post on RfA, as opposed to those who post on ER? Or am I misunderstanding you? - jc37 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to fear, but anyone putting their name on RFA will (should) expect their contribs to be examined. They are welcome to submit at ER for comment but it's not part of the RFA process and just bloats the page more....there's 40 names on that list. Rx StrangeLove 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"anyone putting their name on RFA will (should) expect their contribs to be examined." - and someone putting their name up for an ER doesn't expect that? As for "page bloat", I disagree, as noted above. I think if the editor reviews are on a higher traffic page, and are limited to 5-14 days, then not only will the reviews be plentiful and helpful, but they won't be just hanging around waiting and hoping for additional comments (becoming archived at the end of their term, just like RfA/Bs are). - jc37 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"If there's no consensus that RFA is broken then why are we trying to fix it?" - I didn't say that there was or wasn't. What I am saying is that this proposal is a "good thing" irregardless. This proposal just has the added benefit of possibly "fixing" several things that others see as "broken" on RfA. - jc37 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is if there isn't a common understanding of what's broken, why would we put a bunch of stuff on the project page to "fix" what some people see as broken, shouldn't there be more agreement on what needs doing? Rx StrangeLove 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's what you are looking for, feel free to scour this page, and its many archives : ) - I don't think that we need to decide on what is specifically broken (if anything) in order to merge these two pages. Please take a moment to read the proposal again. What about it do you see as "bad"? - jc37 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I read this page all the time and the reason given the most for RFA being broken is that people have irrelevant reasons to oppose (read:standards are too high) and this doesn't address that. I do think you need a reason to make a change like this, and not say just we know something's broken, let's do this. I think doing something for no specific reason is bad. Rx StrangeLove 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My point in response was that I do list reasons for the proposed change. Look specifically under "This would:" in the proposal text. Which is why I asked that you re-read the proposal. If you're not interested, I can fully accept that. But there are reasons. I'm just not claiming that this will solve the myriad other suggested problems from this page. I think it will solve some, but I think that's irrelevant to main reasons for the proposal. - jc37 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the things it's supposed to do, but none of those things addess the major objections people have to how RFA is run now. So you're wanting to suggest stongly that people jump through an extra hoop (and add up to 40 names to the RFA page) without improving the process in any substantive way. Anyway, I didn't mean to string this out like this...I'm going to sit back and see what others say. Rx StrangeLove 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"but none of those things addess the major objections people have to how RFA is run now." - I think it addresses several issues, and I think it very much improves the process, and I don't think that, once implemented, we'll have 40 names on the page. However, I respect your position to believe otherwise (and to sit out further discussion). Have a great day : ) - jc37 00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging WP:ER with WP:RfA is like merging WP:GA and WP:FA. While going through the WP:ER/WP:GA process first is recommended, it should not be mandatory to do so. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I have no problem re-adding "strongly suggest" in place of "require" in the proposal above. - jc37 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is only "strongly suggested," then why are we trying to merge the two pages? Or has this discussion gone off in a tangent? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest merging the two pages, for the reasons I outlined at the top. Whether or not it's "required" or "strongly suggested" that those who wish to go through RfA should go through an ER sometime in the 3 months prior to their RfA request is what seems to be going off on a tangent. - jc37 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, actually, whether it is "required" or "strongly suggested" to go through ER before RfA is important because it determines whether the pages should be merged. If it should be required to go through ER before RfA, by all means merge it in the name of efficiency. But if it is only "strongly suggested" (aka the status quo), then merging the two processes will only serve to cause confusion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you mean merge the pages, not the processes. Never mind. I (weakly) support it, as long as one is not required to go through ER before RfA. I would accept the "strongly suggests" part. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly : ) - jc37 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like merging the two pages, however, I do like the idea of a strong encouragement to particpate in ER first, at least given the current "ADMINSHIP IS A REALLY BIG DEAL" climate here. Keep in mind though, that ER is designed to be used for other things - general editing improvement for one. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that lately it's not. It's pretty much being used for "How'm I doing", and by extension, "Give me feedback in relation to a chance at RfA". - jc37 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's like the way it's like right now. RfA and RfB are on the same page. Not everyone how has gone through RfA will want to go through RfB. However, adding ER to the RfA/RfB page can cause the combined page to be prohibitively long and unwieldy, considering the current state of ER. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I see is scalability. As is, RFA already has a problem that as Wikipedia grows larger and gets more users, this RFA page is going to be HUGE (it is already very large), and might not be able to keep up with the volume of requests- people would have to shift through huge volumes of text and might not be able to evaluate candidates with the care that they should get. Doubling the number of RFAs/reviews on one page will be nasty. I'd be all up for a more prominent link to the WP:ER page, and the "strongly suggest" wording Borisblue 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't editors put a little link in their sig if they have a listing at ER? Then anyone can see it and access it from the the "field", folks can react in real time? More people would see it... Rx StrangeLove 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen some editors doing that. I am not sure about how successful such approach would be, though, because you wouldn't click on it just as you wouldn't click on the green "e" of Esperanza after the first time. -- ReyBrujo 04:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not unless they wanted to make a comment on something the editor did, then after some time has passed that person could link back to their ER section on their RFA...just an idea to draw more traffic to ER entries without linking them here.. Rx StrangeLove 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a review, that sounds like a... hmm... how it is said in english... "complaint book"? That is, you did something and someone clicks in your link and writes "On October 9, 2006, this user implied I was not neutral." I believe the way it is is fine enough. There are some who contribute, some come, and some go. Just like Peer Review doesn't always give feedback (I posted the Goldmoon article was listed for 3 weeks and got only one review, and then Riverwind, which has been there for two weeks without a single review), I believe people should edit only when they are willing to take a time to check everything, not only add a note about something the editor did. At least, that is what I think the link in the signature means at a first glance. -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ReyBrujo is right, the link in the signature doesn't really work. Unless you see the user doing something extraordinarily good/bad, you probably wouldn't give it a second glance. Best to have a link on your user page/talk page, methinks.

And as for merging ER and RfA... not sure it would work. ER is a great tool for people who want feedback on their actions, especially new users. Perhaps branch ER into people who are actually looking for adminship, and people who just want others' thoughts? I am fairly active on both ER and RfA, and ER has a much gentler, soothing atmosphere, which is great for newbies looking to improve. RfA, on the other hand, is almost always a testicle-crushing/beauty pageant-like process. Splitting ER could possibly, possibly work. Just my 2 cents. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 09:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, just throwing stuff out there that might drive people to ER without linking them here (which is a bad idea IMHO)....Rx StrangeLove 14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand, Rx. I also strongly agree with Radiant!'s comment below. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this suggestion at all. We were discussing having people to jump through less hoops before becoming an admin, this process amounts to adding more (not to mention doubling the time involved). >Radiant< 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on need for reform, and issues with RFA (Archive 72)

As much as I dislike straw polls, I think that one would be helpful to determine where we stand. We aren't to the point of making any decisions from this information, this is just an advisory poll to guide the issue of reform in a direction the community supports.

Survey: Need for reform?

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position(s) you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Also, please feel free to bring forward additional positions, although, keep in mind we are not making changes here, just seeing where people stand.

A major overhaul of the RFA process is needed

— Werdna talk criticism 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- half-vote - David Gerard 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely. --Rory096 12:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably. I'd rather see minor changes that accomplish reform, but I don't think it would help at this point. The problems are more social and political than proceedual, and writing proceedure to counter social and political problems is tricky at best. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, on the whole, I agree. We have moved right away from the "no big deal" school of thought to what David Gerard characterised as "arbitrary demands for shrubberies". Discussion does not focus on whether a user will use the tools wisely, but on whether people like them. We often get too much detail in opposes, too much argufying over them, supporters tend not to offer examples of what they consider desirable behaviour (making the negative stand out by contrast). Sysopping should be no big deal, and withdrawal of sysop privileges, temporarily or permanently, should also be no big deal; let people try their wings and then if they are found not to have developed the judgment or maturity then encourage them to self-desysop and come back again in a year. And yes, I really do have a big problem with the fact that we rejected User:Stephen B Streater - he is a very measured and calm editor, skilled at defusing conflicts, and his RFA ended up in a fight about somthing he was trying to do to help, using his own intellectual property to work around the problematic .ogg format and maybe offer media in Java. Even if that were a bad thing, which I don't think it is, it has nothign to do with whether he'd be a good admin. We also rejected User:Badlydrawnjeff; whatever you think of his enthusiasm for popular culture, the chances of him deleting an article when he should not are remote and he's pretty good with newbies as well. I strongly believe that people are seeing adminship as a Big Deal and it's time to see if we can't de-escalate that. Guy 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Something needs to be done. _→AzaToth 10:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No big deal. Right. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The RFA process works, but could stand improvement

VIE! The process at the moment probably produces the right answer most of the time, but that probably isn't enough. --ais523 08:52, 9 October 2006 (U T C)
- half-vote - David Gerard 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)The RfA process works, but is not necessarily the optimal scheme. There is no reason to suppose that any new scheme would be optimal, either. -Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
'Crats need more ability to discount bad !votes and incorrect reasoning. The process is fine, it's the fear of making a poor result because of a misguided view of what the true consensus is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
For once I agree with Badlydrawnjeff. IMO it's the purely arbitrary edit count requirements per namespace that need to go. -- Steel 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, but then again we knew that. >Radiant< 14:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As always. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It has a lot of undesirable characteristics, but when push comes to shove it does a decent job of determining who the community trusts with adminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority of rfas go through without incident (incident defined as a discussion on this talkpage, or worse! :D) Occasionally, something goes wrong. Trying to make sure that that certain something doesn't go wrong again might very well screw up rfas that would've previously gone through without incident. So "improvement" could turn out to be a double-edged sword. But that doesn't mean we can't try it anyways. Picaroon9288 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. There are problems/ideosyncracies/weaknesses in the current system, but overall it works "most" of the time. We just had 3 of 4 candidates promoted successfully today, right after we had a hair-pulling session last week about how no one could/would want to run the gauntlet is RFA as it is currently constituted. I like the "break the problem down" approach mentioned above/asked for by Durin every time this comes up. -- nae'blis 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I made this suggestion above, Several commenters here seem to support the idea. - That bureaucrats may ask any commenter to further explain their vote (like dropping a note on the commenter's talk page), and that bureaucrats may remove/discount unexplained votes, at their discretion. I believe that they already have this ability, but I think it should be re-affirmed, in order to re-affirm that this leans more towards concensus, rather than democratic voting. (I am thinking of several situations/examples on CfD when I suggest this.) I think that it should be limited to bureaucrats, though, to prevent possible harrassment or abuse. - jc37 19:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
For the most part, it works. I mostly agree with Christopher Parham, but any change really ought to be minor. Despite the multitude of suggestions made on this talk page and elsewhere, I haven't seen a solution that doesn't create a whole new set of problems. It seems that change needs to occur in the community, not the system. Unless a consensus can be reached on minimum standards and what are and are not acceptable criteria, it seems that the wildly diverging standards of individual editors (which, overall, seem to be drifting higher) is part of the problem. Agent 86 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem with the process (it does seem to mostly be working for concensus, after all), but rather how editors approach this process. Arbitrary edit counts that focus on quantity over quality, requirements for candidates to have experience in areas that don't interest them (and will not be using the tools for), and any number of other reasons to cast an oppose vote do not seem to reflect what wikipedia needs; trustworthy admins. I agree with Badlydrawnjeff, 'crats need greater abilility to disregard "votes" that do not represent a genuine concern for community views. Markovich292 22:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The process itself is not the problem. It is the editors' behavior on RfA that often leads to calls of bias and need for change. However, I'm not saying that the process couldn't have a tweak or two. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty good. The people involved could behave better, remember AGF, civility, NPA and all that, but human behavior is unlikely to change anytime soon. Tweaks are possible, but not overhaul, methinks. Antandrus (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it works pretty well. I think any improvements should come (per NoSeptember and Durin) gradually, based on clearly identified problems. And any solutions should not be too burdensome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is majorly broken (as I once thought), but there are some issues with "voting" rather than discussion and the occasional snowballing of oppose votes over some silly minor issues. The biggest thing that I don't like is about some people having strict criteria with some funny percentages, but there aren't many of these and I don't remember seeing any negative effect of this on the outcome. However all the problems tend to stem from erring on the side of caution rather than silliness, overall I trust the candidates who do come out even if occasional worthy editors get rejected over some minor outburst weeks ago.--Konst.able 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's evident that RfA, as it stands now, ensures that the right people are becoming sysopped due to the virtually non-existent problem of having to desysop people (a dozen or so out of 1000+ admins) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Elaboration: Per JzG, I've definitely supported candidates who haven't succeeded in an RfA and that I still think would make fine administrators despite community consensus that stated otherwise, but that doesn't mean that the system is totally broken. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It stops most unsuitable candidates, so it sort of works. However, I think the way current RfAs work (this includes people's standards) discourages many good candidates, and I don't want to put any non-cookie cutter candidate through this process, as I fear that a silly rejection might make them lose faith in Wikipedia. So I am afraid to nominate good candidates. Maybe that's my problem and not a problem of the process, though. Kusma (討論) 10:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think the process of RFA is broken. It needs to be fine tuned to better meet the needs of our growing community. --FloNight 10:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
RFA is not broken. I do think a little more transparency from the bureaucrats wouldn't hurt. Human nature always applies. Grand master ka 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm cool with how it is †he Bread 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
All we need to do is end the charade that 'RFA is not a vote'. Of course it is. When was the last time someone with a minority of votes got promoted? Once we have gotten over our pretensions on that point, we need to work out how to make the vote fair. The simplest way would be to use the same suffrage rules as the Arbcom or WMF board elections to prevent sockpuppets or meatpuppets from skewing the results. Cynical 10:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Avi 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is perfect, but I really don't have a serious problem with the current problem. I probably believe that it is tad too restrictive, while many others would think it is not restrictive enough and needs to be made tougher. (I'm in the adminship isn't a big deal crowd) How in the world would changing the process fix those differences? Whoever can resolve that paradox should be rewarded for their diplomacy skills. With respect to the Carnildo decision, the problem (if anything) was not with the RfA, but with the bureaucrats themselves. Still I'm open to any constructive improvements, as there obviously could be some. -- RM 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The only real problem IMO is that of "social RFAs": you get 70+ close "wikifriends" and it doesn't matter if you are flagrantly unsuitable admin material; the RFA generally walks it. Some re-wording would be nice; of course RFA is a vote, and there needs to be firmer pointing in the direction of relevant guidelines, so that newbies don't end up with pile-on opposes. Apart from that, IMO it works pretty well. Moreschi 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
With ten times as many admins, you'd have ten times fewer problems reaching a critical point. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
As I've suggested elsewhere, yeah. Not totally broken, but could be improved upon. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the only problem is the people voting. Yes you, me, everyone, I have my own standards which mean that I might not support someone while they seem a great candidate for other people. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RFA process

Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)There is nothing wrong with the RfA process that is likely to be fixed by an amendment to it.
All we need to do is let anons vote, but besides that I see nothing wrong with RfA. - Mike | trick or treat 13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA gives imperfect answers. That's fine. Imperfection is part of humanity.

Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
See below. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Avi 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Moreschi 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA does not always get the answer right. There is no reason to suppose that any other system is likely to either

Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Steel 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
W.marsh 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Every system ever is "broken" the second it produces a decision you don't argee with, which is inevitably going to happen.
--WinHunter ^(talk) 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
— riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 15:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're looking for something perfect, look elsewhere. Picaroon9288 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Bang on. Agent 86 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If RfA was perfect, we would not need such a process. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 09:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The biggest problem with RFA comes from the process's inabilty to satisfy all points of view. Current practices have not dealt well with abstract conflicts in opinion about standards for noms. Some nom's RFA are subject to strong disagreement between users offering their opinion. Perhaps this makes some users not want to participate in the process. Not a good thing! --FloNight 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Grand master ka 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Avi 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned in one other post, the people "voting" have mutually exclusive interests that can't be resolved by a new process, unless said process does not allow certain objections. But of course I'm not in favor of a process that censors honest thought. -- RM 17:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
the wub "?!" 17:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Moreschi 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, but what any engineer would tell you is that you need to aim for the least amount of errors, not absolute perfection. Nothing will attain complete, unadulterated efficacy, so it's akin to chasing a moving car. Tito xd^(?!?) 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Too true. Any system involving people is going to have flaws. There are some people that I believe would br fine admins who can't seem to get a successful RfA. I'm disappointed, but I still have to accept consensus even when I disagree. It's election time here is in the US. Would to God our elections and candidates were as transparent, approachable, and accountable as RfA and our noms.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
As somebody once said, a strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is unlikely to be a magic bullet that fixes everything that anyone perceives as being wrong with RfA

Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Steel 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
W.marsh 14:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC) RfA developed slowly and organically to deal with various problems encountered over the past 3 years. There's no reason to have confidence that a brand new system will not have major problems once put into practice.
--WinHunter ^(talk) 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. But that should not stop us from having a go. Guy 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Markovich292 22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Very true. We don't even know what is wrong with the process (if there is something wrong at all), so who can find the solution to an unknown possibly-nonexistent problem? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Avi 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Moreschi 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Alphachimp 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I think plenty of people feel RfA needs improvement. But feeling it needs improvement is potentially quite different than what reality may be. Repeating myself from many other comments I've made, we can't know if there's a problem without performing analysis. In small systems, this isn't much of a necessity. But, in larger systems with complex aspects and potentially very negative outcomes, such analysis needs to be done. Is there a problem? I don't know any more than the next person. Asking if people feel RfA is broken does not bring much clarity to the situation. I thus decline answering the question. --Durin 11:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a nuclear power plant, where experimenting could be really dangerous. If a proposed new process works worse than the current RfA, we could just go back. Maybe we actually learn something about what is good or bad about the current process from trying something else. Do you really think it will do very much harm to try? Kusma (討論) 12:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  - Getting this wrong has real consequences to people. Without blowing up the servers, that's about as nuclear power plantish as you can get around here. --Durin 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    - I think the current process is pretty bad for the candidates, and would welcome proposals that make it easier for them. I was implicitly hoping the new system would be less of an ordeal. Kusma (討論) 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The consensus not-quite-sort-of-a-vote system seems to work. Requirements need to be sensible. I might try a draft rewrite of the intro at some time soon for your amusement - David Gerard 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free. Dozens of attempts at new systems, rewrites, etc have been tried over the last year. --Durin 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is people applying arbitrary standards (that are perceived by some as too high). There are four ways around this. (1) !vote on RFAs yourself applying different standards, to compensate; (2) educate people that their arbitrary standards are not representative; (3) make certain standards mandatory to prevent arbitrariness (e.g. if we enforce a standard of "three months" then people won't be able to use "nine months" as an argument); and (4) reduce the 80% standards. I also encourage people in this discussion to make an RFA nomination. >Radiant< 12:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But if we enforce this mandatory standard of "three months", what's going to stop it from creeping up to nine months eventually anyways? Picaroon9288 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus. If consensus ever holds that it should be nine months, then it should be so. Presently, a small group of users can make any such decision and enforce it, overruling consensus because every opposer cancels out four supporters. >Radiant< 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1 cancelling out 4 would seem to be the greatest weakness of RfA, at the moment. A ratio of 1:3, or possibly even 1:2 would seem to be preferrable. (The US congress only requires a 2/3 majority to over-ride a veto : ) - jc37 19:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This "1 oppose cancels out four supports" has always struck me as a bit of a red herring, even if we did consider this a vote, so I finally broke down and did the math on it. If:

S = current # of supports
N = current # of opposes
and C = change required to make $S/(S+N)=(S+C)/((S+C)+(N+1))$

then C solves out to be $S/N$ ! Which means that at the current "magic numbers" of 80% and 75%, each oppose already equals between 4 or 3 supports.. (it gets crazily high when you consider landslides, but it all evens out in the end). To change how much an oppose "cancels out", you have to change the overall approval percentage, something RFA seems loathe to do at present. -- nae'blis 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Consensus for a suggestion. - jc37 00:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah Radiant, now that opens up a whole new can of worms when thinking about the future here. If a small group of people decide that a minimum edit count of 6000 is required as well as a mimimum of 9 months editing, where will this take us? It could work out that only the admins that met standards of this minority were promoted. As a result, the admin:editor ratio would plummet as new people join wikipedia and admins "retire" from their duties. Markovich292 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A proposal like you suggest wouldn't prevent people from applying arbitrary standards -- rather, it would codify and mandate those standards. The main problem with people applying edit count standards isn't that they are too subject to individual judgment or that they are creeping upwards, it's that they have only very little to do with what we are actually trying to assess. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it would codify and mandate consensual standards, and make it impossible for small groups of people to override consensus. In the present system, a group of, say, ten editors can enforce whatever high standard they want by opposing people that don't meet it. >Radiant< 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

- It would be consensual, but still arbitrary, just as if we all agreed you had to be male to be an admin, it would be consensual but arbitrary. (Arbitrary as in, determined by whim rather than necessity or reason.) The point is that having any rigorously applied minimum edit count is a bad idea. It seems obvious, at least to me, that the difference between X-1 and X+1 edits is not a good indicator of whether a person is qualified for adminship, unless those are two pretty damn good edits. The solution to people using bad standards is to ignore their opinions, not to codify a slightly less bad standard. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the "why the fuck are we polling like this" option? Specifically, who expected to obtain any useful data from the above, when the second option is "The RFA process works, but could stand improvement"? It's just like the neutral option in market surveys--never let your interviewers read it, unless you want a majority of your data to be useless in drawing up a report (10% said A, 10% not-A, and 80% didn't actually say anything). The joys of this talk page... Marskell 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There were a couple of those but someone removed them. >Radiant< 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I included a couple of those when I 'expanded' the options for people just like you (:)) see here. Re-instate them if you like. -Splash - tk 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like "voting" either, but for the purpose, it's reasonable, this straw poll decides absolutely nothing, but it does provide a way to see how well the general concept of reform is likely to be recieved, as well as some guidance on what the prevaling opinions are. When used for that, and nothing more, a straw poll is simply a tool of measurement, rather than a tool of decisionmaking. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To place a vote anywhere above would be to validate the whole thing. Polls are impossible to execute properly on the Wiki, most of the time, and if you see a bad one, best not to participate. The best poll options remain as close to the following two as possible: Yes or No. As soon as you depart from that with whole phrases as options, you're not getting anywhere (unless you're deliberately seeking "open ends", which is a different thing altogether).

Yes/no polling is problematic... rarely are their only two choices except when both of those choices are artifically created. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of market research (to carry the example) is to "artificially create" didactic choices. A broad survey will have such, amongst other things. "I like the new Ford Taurus. Agree/Disagree"—a deliberately stark choice. "What do you think of the new Ford Taurus?"—a deliberately open-ended question. Any poll needs to decide whether it's doing the former, the latter, or both (compartmentalized from question to question) off the top; Wiki polls almost always get it wrong buy haphazardly creating something in-between—the above is an example. Marskell 23:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But that isn't a rejection of the principle of polling. Wiki culture has come to radically denigrate (proper) voting in favour of discussion, but there is no ought involved in this; it's just happened that way. If we do want a poll, perhaps: "The support/oppose structure of RfA should be changed. Agree or disagree; do not leave comments." That's all—if someone adds extra options, remove them. Marskell 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Trial run of Wikipedia:RFA as RFC (Archive 72)

I've started a trial run for myself here. Please treat it as a real nomination, even though it won't be binding in any sense of the word. I've been fairly controversial in the last week or so, so I'm looking forward to generating some interesting discussion on the page. This is a chance for us to see how one of the proposals would actually work in a real situation. — Werdna talk criticism 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you create a set of guidelines for the RFC? For example, what is a certification, what is an endorsement, what are the format requirements for each? Are they just signatures and timestamps or something more? I suggest that you put the guidelines in the Talk Page for the RFC. Thanx. --Richard 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. done. — Werdna talk criticism 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Less is more, though. We're drowning in process right now. For the record, I think this is an excellent idea. Guy 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I agree with is the "3 user confirmation" thing. I think that should be added to the process. Other than that, I think that RfA is fine as it is. - Mike | trick or treat 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is wonderful! I hope it becomes practice. --Improv 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder of how woefully the various forms of discussion for adminship failed. This is a well-trod path, and one I support... but nothing new is added by re-branding it in this manner. - brenneman ^{L} 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice idea and I think it could work. At least it now requires burden of evidence for someone to place a vote (ie they cant just oppose for no specified reason!). On the other hand it could be confusing especially with lots of participants... We'll see. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14: 09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem: "HOWEVER, PLEASE TREAT IT WITH THE SAME BRUTALITY AS A REAL NOMINATION." RfAs should not be brutal, no matter what form they take. All brutality does is keep a lot of good editors from ever asking for the admin bit in the first place, and it tells those with abrasive personalities, "Hey, maybe adminship is my kind of gig!" --Aaron 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to have a sense of humor with the "not binding" disclaimer, that's all. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not really working, though. It encourages people to vote in sections under each argument. I predict that this will simply make opposers rubber-stamp all arguments against the candidate, and supporters rubber-stamp all rebuttals. >Radiant< 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

- Looks like old wine served in a new bottle to me. The only apparent advantage that I see is that it will expunge muscleheads from engaging in RfAs. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reform Plan? (Archive 73)

I'd just like to present the ideas discussed above as a unified proposal to discuss together:

Proposed changes

An RfA starts with a 3-day "interview and discussion phase." Any editor is free to ask questions to the nominee, who is advised to answer as many as he/she feels comfortable doing.
After 3 days, a 4-day "opinion phase" will allow editors to give a final opinion on whether the nominee should be granted tools.

Benefits

Increased emphasis on discussion of important topics related to adminship between nominee and community.
More information is provided on a nominee's attitude and knowledgeability, helping more editors make sober, informed decisions.
The importance/impact of voting trends is significantly reduced to a level where there could emerge a consensus-building process, which is a suitable balance between discussion and voting.
Allows a nominee to address any misunderstandings, generalizations or complicated issues without the pressure of an on-going vote.
Does not create complicated by-processes, criteria or restrictions.
Does not elongate the overall duration beyond the usual 7 days.
If the process starts with discussions and delays the voting, it may discourage editors who are not interested in the nomination from just plunking down a vote without thinking.
Reduces the hype and tension of the first hour, in which an RfA will build a mountain of supports or crippling objects.
In a condensed 4-day voting period, the bureaucrats can keep a more efficient watch over potential abuses and violations by editors.
Gives bureaucrats more information and 2 independent stages to keep an RfA smoothly running, make a consensus call and keep out malicious elements.

Possible problems

Interview phase might be trying for the nominee.
Editors may ask trick questions, questions not associated to adminship or on controversial topics to jeopardize the nomination.
Nominee may feel pressure to answer every question, including those not pertinent to adminship.
May impede the closure of nominations that would usually fail and be closed under WP:SNOW.

Suitable adjustments

Bureaucrats will be required to pay closer attention to individual RfAs to make sure that the discussion phase is civil and productive, and to expose/stop anyone from placing questions that are unsuitable as judged by WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and WP:NPOV — the latter may help protect the independent opinions of the nominee and other editors on sensitive topics.
Bureaucrats will be free to extend the discussion phase by 1 day if requested by nominee, an editor with a question and/or the nominator.
This 2-stage process can be optional - if nominee/nominator choose to, they can fill in a RfA nomination page that is customized for 2-stages.

Rama's arrow 04:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd like to say that we should discuss WP:NPOV as a way to protect the integrity of Wikipedia processes and those who serve it. I'm just throwing this concept up for discussion - dunno how good it is. Rama's arrow 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, its fine with me if someone wants to take a straw poll on this. I don't know if we're there yet, but its quite a straightforward plan. Rama's arrow 04:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

While a 3-day discussion phase is fine, a 4-day opinion period is too short. Why not keep the second phase at 7 days (5-7 is fine) and lengthen RfA to 10 days or around (8-10)? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is also an option. However, bear in mind that many RfAs today are kinda "set" within 2-3 days. Rama's arrow 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting (and much more professional) concept, and it gives b-crats more of a sense of empowerment, which we need them to have. — Deckill e r 04:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Since RFA is trying, I would not want to make the process longer. I have no objection to a discussion period first, but you have to think of what to do about people who ignore this and vote on the first day anyway (that's what happened the last couple of times someone tried a DFA rather than an RFA). >Radiant< 09:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- We should make that grounds for blocking :-) — Deckill e r 11:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  - Just like sarcasm is now a blockable offense? >Radiant< 11:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- My personal preference is that we keep the process at 7 days and not elongate it (except by bureaucrat's discretion, which is already justified and often used). And yes, no user should be permitted to vote in the first 3 days. Rama's arrow 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  - Often used? When, exactly? I've seen it used only two or three times and at least one of those elongations was very controversial. >Radiant< 11:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the intentions here are good, but I can't help but think this conversation has gone "Let's revive DFA." followed by, "No, let's not". Then, "Ok, let's identify what's wrong with RfA". Lastly, "Ok, DFA solves that". I don't think we're going to solve the problems of RfA through a couple of days worth of discussion. This is going to take a lot more work than that. --Durin 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but not without its problems. Its probably a better idea to just keep the voting at 7 days and change RfA to 10 days: there is really no disadvantage to that. If it doesn't usually take 7 days to reach consensus, that doesn't really matter: it'll just be another few days of waiting anyways. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This notion is the failed DFA proposal. Why that isn't any good has been gone through at length. yet another section on this talk page with yet another presumptive title does not a) a consensu make b)a new idea create nor c)RfA improve. Think of something original, then try again. Also see further up where hardly anyone actually wants massive overhaul of RfA. You're swimming against the wrong tide wearing armbands that have already been deflated. -Splash - tk 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Splash, for putting it so well. As I said at greater length above, this is a terrible set of ideas. Discussion already takes place at great enough length that RfA participants feel they have enough information to make a decision. If greater clarification is needed, additional questions have always been optional. I've added them, Joshuaz has added them, others have as well. (I still remember my surprise the time a candidate's answer to my question influenced a number of participants to !vote oppose.) Due diligence already requires a !voter to do homework checking a nom's contribs and then checking the RfA page to see if something new has come up. RfA does the necessary job with minimum effort. We do not need more WP:CREEP in RfA for no real benefit. Leave be.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I strongly disagree with Splash and Dlohcierekim, I think Durin has a very valid point (very consistent) - we aren't pin-pointing the exact problem, so maybe a general re-ordering of the process will not be effective. This is hardly an overhaul (and I certainly don't see any WP:CREEP effect), but its true that its effectivity is debatable. Rama's arrow 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, telling people "you must not vote during the first three days, discuss only" is problematic. This is a complication of the RfA system we could well do without. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then will someone please start that discussion on what the perceived/consensus problems are with RFA?? We've been asked for months, if not years, to identify them, and I tried above but got no traction. I don't know where to go from here, but the question of how to "fix" RfA isn't going to go away without empirical evidence that it's been fixed/wasn't broken to begin with. -- nae'blis 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion a couple of weeks ago, which was split to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems. It may be worth continuing it. --ais523 16:09, 18 October 2006 (U T C)

Unfortunately, splitting it off seems to have killed that discussion. I'm loathe to have it here, because it swamps the talk page, but I can't think of another centrally-located spot to do it, short of starting a new page and linking to it extensively from VP, etc. If the Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship had more traction, I'd consider starting a /Problems page there... -- nae'blis 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst a continuing consideration of possible 'things' about RfA is useful, and a more rigorous approach then yet-another-diving-right-in-with-a-proposal section, I wonder perhaps if the reason for a lack of traction is eloquently expressed in the not-so-evil poll up top? -Splash - tk 19:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, all I can glean from the poll at the top is that people who visit WT:RFA don't think RFA is perfect. Surely that's not the perspective you were trying to point out; note that I've never been one of the scrap-it-all-and-start-over howling mob. The largest sections by far are "could stand improvement" and "does not always get the answer right (but neither might anything else)". Where does that lead you to believe people don't want to talk about change? Unless you're citing the silent majority.... -- nae'blis 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean that the two most popular sections are those that don't advocate a great deal of dissatisfaction with RfA. If there's not much dissatisfaction beyond "not perfect, not going to be" and "works ok, could stand improvement" (particularly note that reading the comments is insightful), then there's unlikely to be much effort put into convergence on perfection. There's not enough actual dissatisfaction to propel us toward any serious change, despite the regularly appearing sections here. Those sections just tend to appear when someone/someone's nominee's RfA is going in a way they'd prefer it not. So the other kind of silent majority, I guess: those who participate but do not generally complain about the process much. -Splash - tk 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm. I can see what you mean, but disagree with the interpretation (which is okay, of course) of the posted results... also, see the Admin Accountability Poll for further discussion on the topic. It's almost like one of those perennial proposals you see on the Village Pump, and I'd like to find a way to cut the knot, but I'm probably just dreaming. I think WP has in some ways gotten too big for its systems, and the Wikipedia definition of "consensus" makes my teeth itch from time to time... don't mind me. :) -- nae'blis 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reform proposal (Archive 73)

In the followings I would like to present you my reform proposal which is very simple but very effective:

If a user was blocked for 3RR can't be elected Admin
Admins are elected for only one year

I'm interested in your support for this simple and effective plan for reforming RfA. Wissahickon Creek ^msg 15:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The past is the past. If a user shows that they have reformed their ways, then there is know reason that they should be denied equal oppurtunity for adminship because they were blocked for 3RR in March of '05. The re-election thing is an interesting idea, but I don't think that there is any problem with giving them permenant admin status. Admins lost their powers if they abuse them. - Mike | Talk 15:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First proposal is not realistic (a silly mistake when you were green damns you forever).

Second proposal came up many times before. It would be a logistical nightmare, and it is not worth it as out of 1000 current admins there are usually conduct issues with around 5 admins per year, that's 99% good admins we are talking about. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, we can reformulate them in order to reform the RfA process.-- Wissahickon Creek ^msg 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose both

If a user was blocked for 3RR can't be elected Admin

Many heavy editors who get in heaty discussions can accidentally revert too much, this could be from 5 years ago or 5 months ago. This will surely block many potential admins. You'll find there are quite a few current admins with 3rr on their block log.

Admins are elected for only one year

I'm taking this means users can only be nominated once a year? Ridiculous, a user can fix their problems in a non-successful rfa with 6 months easily, whether it's the experience or just the amount of time they've been here.

I'd do believe we need more admins, blocking potential ones for 3rr and delaying their chance until next year isn't the way forward.--Andeh 16:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, you said I'd do believe we need more admins so, if we do need more Admins how can we make that happen? Any suggestion to reform our system?-- Wissahickon Creek ^msg 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just saying that I strongly disagree with your suggestions. Do you see where I was coming from with my strong oppose?--Andeh 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose both 1) Admins are human and make mistakes like anyone else. The community feels that their judgement, methodology, and abilities dealing with editors are such that they can be trusted with some wiki chores. 2) Likewise, Admins are judged on their judgement; you would be turning this into a political election with constituencies et al, and admins would not be able to make the decisions they were entrusted to make (for the most part) b/c someone, somewhere, is bound to get PO'd. We have ArbCom to prevent massive sysop abuse -- we should not make admins become whores (pardon my French) to the wiki-consituency. If you do not feel someone exhibits good judgement and should not be trusted, it is actually your responsibility to make your opinion known in the RfA. At least that is my opinion. -- Avi 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect to insightful newbies, this proposal was Wissahickon Creek's 6th edit as a logged-in user. Did you have a particular reason for feeling that there was a need for reform? And how does your proposal solve those problems? -- nae'blis 16:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that my first proposal is a little bit radical, in the sense that from now on only the clean editors can be admitted as sysops but I think it's exactly what we should focus on: reform of RfA process. As for them we can reformulate in order to modernize them and improve the overall RfA process. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is how you know what "RfA" even is, let alone have ideas for reforming it, 20 minutes and 5 edits after your first edit on Wikipedia. --W.marsh 17:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a smart guy I guess :) You don't have to be rich to have ideas, you don't have to be brilliant to be a reformer, it's something natural born I guess. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 17:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
- 1) Suppose someone figured out how to revert but hadn't heard of 3RR when they had been here a week, got scalded for 3RR and changed. Then a year down the track they put in an RfA it means they can't succeed? A bit stringent.
- 2) That would make this page very clogged with "Support" per nom. every day there would be 3 new admins needing review aswell as the people wanting to become an admin. I think that admins are fine in staying admins forever (or until they abuse it). It is unlikely that any abuse will be stopped by that process. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 00:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I'm cool with how RFA works now †he Bread 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per reasons listed in the discussion thus far. Cbrown1023 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on RfA reform (Archive 73)

I know that a bunch of editors (including me) have gotten too carried away with notions of reforming the RfA process. Most efforts at brainstorming are well-meaning and harmless, but going round in circles. After some reflection I've realized that the problems of RfA are not obvious, so it would be wise to give up notions of a sweeping reform. I'd like to ask some questions that might help:

The principles and system guidelines of RfA are very clear. Editors are given many opportunities and resources to make informed decisions. So what can we do to live up to them?
At the moment, several users have launched private efforts to figure out the problems of RfA and ways to change. Instead of disjointed efforts, should we organize a "month-long, central workshop" to (a) research and study the process, (b) identify any problem based on analysis and (c) fix the problem, if there is one?
Which are the RfA cases that people identify as having exposed problems in RfA? Are there statistical/technical patterns, common features in those "problem RfAs?" Where does the "politicization" element come from? Are the cited problems in reality just frustration?
Should there be an independent "Admin accountability" process to relieve the pressure on RfAs?

Jimbo Wales was pretty clear that changing the process without in-depth analysis can mean creating more problems. Just a few thoughts to chew over. I would certainly discourage myself and others from presenting reform proposals without in-depth analysis and a joint effort with other editors. The problem is subtle and cannot be rooted out without considerable digging. Rama's arrow 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very well thought-out approach to the question. (We can call it question rather than a problem, now at least!) To get you started, and help avoid circularity:

2. Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship (and subpages thereof)?

4. Have you seen Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll?

-Splash - tk 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems I haven't left the eternal merry-go-round! I know about the first but not the second. And in both cases I don't see much prior research or conclusive initiatives - I mean, polls in mid-Sept. and we're still having a cascade of reform proposals? I would like to participate in a workshop with a large group of concerned editors with tools to conduct some solid, technical research (leaving out polls, which are useless in terms of identifying a problem). We should then take up often-raised concerns and analyze to see if/where the problem is. Perhaps what I'm talking about is like a think tank.

To emphasis, a large group of responsible editors should try to answer 3 questions: (a) Is there a problem with RfA? (b) If so what is it and what can we do about it? (c) If there is no technical problem, then what keeps causing all this relentless hullabaloo? Rama's arrow 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like a group of us to sit down and like Durin, collect data and indicators from past RfAs. Making charts and tables, we can perhaps work out what is causing this ruckus. Rama's arrow 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

One big problem is the huge vandalism, partly due to the exponential increasing of the articles. Solutions? --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with above-listed comments that fighting vandalism can be done primarily through WP:RCP and WP:CVU - we can fight that problem by expanding the number of RC patrollers. Adminship involves a lot more in terms of having authority to delete articles/images and block users. In any case, vandalism does not come into "Requests for adminship." We're just concerned about how to improve the process of identifying users who will be good admins. Rama's arrow 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] Some critics of Wikipedia have pointed out that certain articles have been deleted even though the majority of the people who commented on the articles wanted them to be kept. This is because consensus is not acheived simply by getting a glut of users to mimic each other and type similar points. I think this feature of consensus-building serves us well at AfD.

[1]

RfA is broken, in my opinion (Archive 30)

Sam Spade's criticism of the RFA process (Archive 31)

Another view: RfA is not broken

Tainted votes (Archive 35)

flawed jewel (Archive 38)

Alternative

Alternative 2: Adminship by "mini-RfC"

Before we can make changes, we have to clearly identify the problems

Some proposals. (Archive 39)

RFA reform (Archive 39)

Another Idea For Reform (Archive 39)

My Views On The Responses

Two Proposals (Archive 39)

Proposal on minimum positive votes (Archive 44)

No change in current procedures

Allow bureaucrats to judge whether support numbers are sufficient on a per-case basis

Require at least 20 support votes

Require at least 25 support votes

Require at least 30 support votes

Other

No self-noms

Oppose requiring non self-noms (ie allow self-noms)

Only allow self-noms

At least 1 vote

Create an RfA-like process through which the community can de-sysop bad admins.

Comments

Is there any difference between first two options?

Radical motion (Archive 45)

Homework for RFA regulars (Archive 46)

Gritty and nitty

Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll (Archive 46)

Please notice (Archive 46)

Suspension (Archive 47)

This process *really* needs to be changed. (Archive 48)

Kicking DfA in the pants (Archive 48)

RFA reform (Archive 49)

RFA Reform and DFA (Archive 49)

A modest proposal to fix the gamed system (Archive 50)

Proposal (Archive 50)

Discussions for Adminship (Archive 52)

Requests for Adminship needs to be reviewed (Archive 55)

More on Amgine and RfA

"The problem is simple"

What is the solution?

The solution is WP:AGF

Proposals above don't go far enough. Consider Discussions for Adminship (Archive 55)

Proposed modification to RfA process. (Archive 60)

Failure of Rf Adminship (Archive 61)

(Possibly just my own) problems with the way the RfA process is being carried out (Archive 62)

Very informal poll (Archive 63)

Agree

Disagree

Notes

Comments

Foo (wrong question)

Poll to determine that polls are evil is evil

Polls to determine that polls are evil is evil are evil

Poll to determine whether the mind-numbing nature if this discussion is sufficient to drive a user to spouse-beating, assuming he/she has one

Poll to determine whether or not this poll has gotten way too frickin' long and should be truncated before someone other than Freakofnurture beats their spouse in frustration over the confusion

Comments from the peanut gallery (Archive 66)

Timetable (Archive 67)

Proposal for a more participatory and transparent promotion process (Archive 68)

extending time for community consensus

Proposal for new process (Archive 69)

User:Geogre/RFA-Derby (Archive 69)

Trial admin

Two more RfA proposals (Archive 69)

From the WP:VIE point of view

From the WP:VINE point of view

Define the problems first? (Archive 71)

RFA as RFC (Archive 71)

Post-RfA thoughts about past RfA Reform suggestions (Archive 71)

Simple solution (Archive 71)

How do we go forward with reform? (Archive 71)

Merge with ER (Archive 71)

Comments

Straw poll on need for reform, and issues with RFA (Archive 72)

Survey: Need for reform?

A major overhaul of the RFA process is needed

The RFA process works, but could stand improvement

This process really needs to be changed. (Archive 48)