Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


So, shall we hash it out as requested? Do you want to copy over any existing concerns from the main talk page, or do we start from scratch with the current edit? -- nae'blis (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to RfA

The paragraph currently reads:

The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous and must exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees must have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. Almost all administrator actions are reversible. Adminship is primarily an extra responsibility as there are rules and policies that apply only to administrators.

I had worked on, with a number of other editors, a version that stated:

The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct such as maintaining courtesy and exercising good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. While administrators are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia", since they have access to the administrative features of the MediaWiki software, the role of administrator is not a trophy. Access to the administrator tools is granted when consensus is established that the user will employ administrative functions responsibly.

Let me justify why I think my version is better:

  1. The "official face" of Wikipedia seems to treat adminship like a trophy something which it is claimed elsewhere it isn't. To relieve this seeming contradiction the version I propose explains that "while" it is perceived as an "official face" by some, it isn't a trophy. This makes it clear for those who might expect otherwise.
  2. The reversibility of administrator actions have nothing to do with RfA as far as I can tell.
  3. The points about extra responsibility and rule are redundant with statements about "high standards of conduct" and also have little to nothing to do with the actual RfA process.

--ScienceApologist 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My hunch is that people need time to absorb and respond to the changes you are suggesting. This is an important page; you are proposing to modify the definition of Admin. My suggestion is that you wait for someone else to make the changes you suggest, as this will ensure that you have actually persuaded someone. Stephen B Streater 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
What is changing about the "definition" of Admin in my proposal? Can you offer a bit more in the way of substantial criticism? The page is, to my understanding, a description of the RfA process. As it seems pretty clear both from WP:A and other related pages that adminship is not a trophy what is controversial about stating this? More than that, why do we include statements about reversibility which has no bearing on the RfA process and the redundant points about responsibilities and extra rules? Any justification out there at all? --ScienceApologist 17:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Different places on Wikipedia express different opinions. Who is to say that the other places are more accurate than this place? One aim of the edits here is to reflect what actually happens. To achieve this, and taking your example, we may have to acknowledge that some Wikipedians see Adminship as a trophy. Just because today you can't see the reason why you may be wrong does not mean you have totally grasped what is required here. To change something as important as the RfA page, it would be preferable to have the active support of at least one other user. Stephen B Streater 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] next draft

The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, such as maintaining courtesy and exercising good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should be able to demonstrate through their time on Wikipedia that they have these qualities. While administrators are often perceived as "officials" for Wikipedia, since they have access to the administrative features of the MediaWiki software, adminship is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to them.

-- nae'blis (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrators are in large part the official face of Wikipedia, and this is one reason why high standards are necessary. This does not imply that it is a trophy, it means that in a dispute or somesuch, an average user sees an administrator as representing Wikipedia and indeed the administrator does represent Wikipedia as an identified influential and experienced user.

Being courteous, etc. are not the "high standards" of being an administrator; these are necessary for an administrator, but they are not high standards, they are the common medium standard for any editor. Also, I don't think it is necessary to talk about MediaWiki software, or the trophy bit. This front matter is for introducing the Requests for adminship page; I don't think the trophy mention will discourage anyone from being an administrator who has not read the other Administrator pages and may be more likely to put ideas in someone's head, as in WP:BEANS. —Centrx→talk • 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than being the official face of Wikipedia, I would say that by gaining a strong consensus for promotion, Administrators were rôle models for how editors should behave. Stephen B Streater 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Stephen. Conferring "official status" in the description of the RfA seems to be something of a myth perpetuation. --ScienceApologist 07:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That line might warrant changing, but the fact remains that, in the ideal, an administrator has been decided by the community to be trustworthy and have an ability to accurately implement policy. A common article editor, whether he recognizes this or whether he thinks that an administrator is a more grand position, does think that administrator actions and opinions are representative of Wikipedia standards. —Centrx→talk • 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that trustworthiness is considered a major part of the qualifications for adminship. Application of higher standards, however, should not be seen as an "official facedom". --ScienceApologist 10:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually thought I was helping to dispel the myth of "administrators are officials/judges/rulers of the Wiki" with my above phrasing. If it's ambiguous in that regard, it should definitely be reworded. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You kind of avoid the issue and equivocate to the point of obfuscation with your wording. If we wanted to truly the dispel the "myth" (is it a myth?) we would simply state: "administrators are not the officials/judges/rulers of the Wiki". My version states that administration is "not a trophy" which allows some wiggle room for those obstinate community hierarchists who want to insist that adminship is a status thing (which it is in the barest of senses, I must admit). --ScienceApologist 02:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence removed from "please note"

Users who have a desire to use the tools properly and also have a history of working at Wikipedia that indicates they will not abuse the tools are the ones who should become administrators.

This sentence was removed, but I think it is illustrative of the kind of advocacy that most people at Wikipedia are hoping for. Do people think it's too redundant? --ScienceApologist 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this page should descriptive, not proscriptive. The standards (such as they are, informal and all) or RfA are too individual and varied to try to hash that out in the header to the page. I'm still mulling over your changes overall, but thanks for coming to the discussion table again. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as being proscriptive since I haven't found anybody who disagrees with this sentiment in principle. People's standards may vary, but they are based fundamentally on the idea that the proper administrator is one that will not abuse the tools. Is that an incorrect characterization? --ScienceApologist 07:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Anything that uses the structure "these are the users who should become administrators" is proscriptive. This sentence appears to imply that these are the ONLY standards necessary, for example; better to leave it out, or at most make reference to the fact that Bad Things in your block log will reflect poorly on your candicacy... -- nae'blis (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
But "Bad Things" in your block log may be taken as an indication that the nominee might abuse the tools and therefore shouldn't become an administrator. It's not the fact of "Bad Things" in the block log that makes people wary -- it's the fact that people who were blocked for infractions show evidence that they might be likely to abuse the tools. Get my drift? --ScienceApologist 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Errr, yes, but you can't prove a "desire to use the tools properly", you can only show absence of evidence that they are likely to abuse them. Other than that, I don't get your distinction. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You cannot prove anything with RfA, the RfA is about collecting evidence from the combined experience of the Wikipedians. In my readings through the various tomes regarding this, it seems clear that most people are looking for evidence that the nominee will or will not abuse the tools. --ScienceApologist 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

We need to make it clear on this page that what really goes on here is a kind of vote that has three different thresholds as per the table on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Anyone think that we should take a crack at rewriting this parenthetical? --ScienceApologist 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should emphasise the non voting nature of RfA. Stephen B Streater 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How is the RfA non-voting? --ScienceApologist 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Because there is a discussion which goes on and people are allowed to change their minds depending on what has been said. The questions and answers can also have a strong influence on the result. It is a consensus building operation. Bureaucrats can take account of what has been said and who has said it too. Stephen B Streater 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because there is a discussion and people are allowed to change their minds doesn't mean that we aren't actually voting for administrators. It just means the way voting occurs is that people can discuss their votes and change their minds until the 'crats rule. I am not disputing it is a consensus-building operation but disputing that it is a vote seems to be disputing what actually goes on in the RfA process. Since people offer yea/nay and those offers are counted percentage-wise towards what the 'crats decide, it seems strange that we would marginalize our description of this process as a vote and rely instead of consensus. It seems that your idealizations of the process are getting in the way of actually describing what goes on. --ScienceApologist 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You are not being entirely unreasonable here. For me, the vote is a minor part of the process. Most of the time is taken up reading the comments, looking at sample edits and forming a view. I would be happy to say the process includes a vote. Stephen B Streater 08:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. We should describe what that vote entails including a better explanation of the threshold other than it being "roughly" 75-80%. Or so I think. --ScienceApologist 09:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the pretty diagram here uses a range 70%-85% for one range. Before changing this range, I'd chat with two or three bureaucrats closing RfAs to find out how closely they follow the percentages and in what circumstances they would override them. Stephen B Streater 09:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
75-80% is the range of bureaucrat discretion. The larger 70-85% range is used on the reports while the RFA is ongoing to call attention to RFAs that are close and hence may deserve extra attention. Dragons flight 19:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're pretty much set in this as the consensus. There is a range of discretion that's pretty much standard here and I just looked through the last 100 admin votes and found all of them in line. Is that good enough evidence? --ScienceApologist 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No, because it ignores the possibility that bureaucrats may make decisions significantly outside the bounds of those limits. Has it happened? Not recently, but it can happen. By identifying these limits, we tightly proscribe the role of bureaucrats and further focus RfA into a vote. It is most decidely not a vote, and attempts at describing it as such miss the point of RfA. --Durin 14:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with you that it's "not a vote", but since the limits exist it is important to describe them for those people that don't know about them. It's only fair to have some transparency. We can include the caveat that bureaucrats can make decisions significantly outside the bounds of those limits to make the description completely transparent, claiming that this somehow ties the hands of the bureaucrats isn't true. We are describing what happens in RfA, not proscribing. --ScienceApologist 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Which is exactly what the wording we already have does. Job done. -Splash - tk 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    No the current wording claims that the 75-80% threshold is a rough estimate for consensus. But it's not. It's far more rigorous than just a "rough" statement. 75-80% is normally bureaucratic discretion range. Why obfusciate when we can be honest? --ScienceApologist 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    So how about saying outside the range 75%-80%, bureaucrats rarely use discretion. If bureaucrats get together and decide that too many rogue admins are being elected, they could decide to increase it. If they decide the admin workload is too high and backlogs are damaging the project, the could reduce it. I'm sure a debate would precede or follow such a decision, but ultimately, they have the well being of the project at heart, not the opinions of (relatively inexperienced) editors. Stephen B Streater 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    No, Bureaucrats only implement community expectations for promotion. They are not empowered to sit around and unilaterally tinker with the standards for promotion. WE give them discretion to make good decisions, but not carte blanche to implement their own agenda. Dragons flight 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's how it works at the moment. But if the consensus (ie on percentages) changes, the Bureaucrats will have to determine this. Stephen B Streater 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have an agreement here that the current wording doesn't adequately explain the process by which consensus is determined? If we can agree on this then we can proceed to develop prose that better describes the voting/consensus-deciding process. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No. I do not see specific shortcomings of the current wording at this time. --Durin 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    You think that in practice the RfAs function around a "rough" estimate at consensus being 75-80%? That's accurate? --ScienceApologist 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion is missing the point. --Durin 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Might you elaborate on this? I'd like to know what point you think the discussion is missing. --ScienceApologist 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a bit of tail chasing. What's been happening is a discussion on whether it's a vote, not a vote, or something in between with arguments going back and forth and returning to each other. RfA, as a consequence of its structure, looks in part like a vote...but it's entirely ancillary to the main purpose of RfA; it is a consensus building mechanism, and that is all it is. Focus on that instead. --Durin 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Even though it is ancillary to the main purpose, it is vitally important to those who submit themselves to the process. The vote-percentage routinely makes-or-breaks nominees. The proof is in the pudding: the last time a bureaucrat tried to grant adminship to someone who didn't have 75% support there was a rather large argument, and I have yet to be able to even locate a nominee who was denied adminship who got more than 80%. Philosophically, I agree with you completely, but we aren't trying to promote philosophy, we're trying to describe the process. Pragmatically, the process is focused (right now) on these magic percentages. The Bureaucrat noticeboard even has a script running to color-code the percentages so they can see them. Red is stop, green is go, etc. Of course, bureaucrats are allowed to do otherwise and can exercise discretion outside the range we list, but this is a very rare occurence (documented to be rare, not just guessed at). This may all seem incidental to the philosophy of consensus, but it is currently the way things are done at RfA. I would like to describe that so that people know what to expect and aren't surprised when this parenthetical comment on the description of the process becomes the major deciding factor in most votes. I'm more than willing to put in the caveats to accurately describe the process, but with all the evidence to the contrary, it is pretty clear to me that this percentage of votes is more important than a parenthetical "rough" guide. --ScienceApologist 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand your argument but respectfully disagree. --Durin 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Without sounding too much like a goader (it may be too late for that), could I ask with which part of the argument you find disagreement? Are you saying that we should promote a philosophy rather than a description on the RfA page? If so, why? --ScienceApologist 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any user account may vote?

Shouldn't there be some restriction on this to not allow someone whose first or second edit is an RfA? Like 50 edits and a week here? —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Up untill now, we've been trying to represent existing policy, not formulate new policy. However it is clear that new and inexperienced users carry significantly less influence. I would personally include 50 edits and a week of editing in this category. Any time less than the length of an RfA would look extremely short in this context. Perhaps we could start with something less precise (Sorry SA!) like extremely new and inexperienced users carry significantly less influence and may have their votes disregarded. Stephen B Streater 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Very good. —Centrx→talk • 08:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems a bit harshly worded. What about just extremely new users may have their votes questioned or disregarded; longstanding anonymous users who have recently created an account may wish to note this to avoid and then I fail on the last word - confusion? suspicion? See below. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to give advice to long standing users. If they don't know the rules after a long time, they may not be qualified to expresss an opinion here. Stephen B Streater 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I may be alone in this, but I think someone who has a backhistory of editing from an IP who has only recently acquired a user account for any reason deserves the same respect for their opinion as someone with all of their edits under their username. Scaring them off with a proceduralistic "you must have this many edits under your username to ride this ride" is counterproductive. That said, I'm not tied to my wording, just trying to avoid biting anyone/being legalistic. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps saying that it is worth while them making clear they have a history then? The problem is that it is hard to verify, and other people from their IP may have made edits too. Stephen B Streater 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"Who may not vote" already states: "Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry." The latest edit seemed to suggest newbies will be discounted simply because they're newbies. That is rather unfair, and I think we need a more robust consensus for that than above. Marskell 18:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Presumption of innocence says we outline the cases in which people may be discounted, not outline the cases in which they might be acceptable. The recent trend toward editorializing This user's 17th edit. is disheartening. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could clarify. Are you saying that the current (ie new today) wording is not what happens, or that you don't like recent trends and want to fix what happens? I added it partly to unify the discussion between here and the RFA talk page. The current version represents what some here think actually goes on. I am also open to changing the wording to what we would like to happen after a suitable (and bigger) debate. Stephen B Streater 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree that in practice a great many newbie votes are discounted but, as nae'blis suggests, the edit seems to reverse the proper onus. There is nothing wrong in principle with a newbie commenting on an RfA and we shouldn't be telling them their comments "carry significantly less influence". Marskell 19:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy that the new wording isn't consensus now more people are involved. I'm happy to bring newbies into the debate. It might save effort if people knew they couldn't just get their friends to sign up and vote for them, but they may realise this already from your quote above. If you think we should keep the influence idea under wraps, that's also not a disaster, though there are regular bouts of indignation when a WP:IAR-style decision is made (eg Danny's RfA closure). I prefer to inform people in advance, but also prefer shorter text as more people read it. Stephen B Streater 19:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"There are regular bouts of indignation..." Yes, there are—so regular that I think we should be careful adding wording because of one thread or recent issue. I commented regularly at RfA talk for about five months and have largely stopped for the last five or so because more than any other page everything has been said before. Newbies and sockpuppets have, of course, been talked about and we do have the sentence above I noted. Is there a "real and present danger" that the new change addresses? If not, I'd say leave it out. As you suggest about shorter text, less is more. Marskell 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'd also like to think that if God joined as a new user, and made a brilliant post, it would not be ignored because of editcountitis. Stephen B Streater 20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that if community sentiment agrees, a tendency toward being permissive of comments and not jumping on a newbie's vote just because they are newbies would be helpful. But as I said above, I want this page to be descriptive, not proscriptive, but I have a real concern about people getting bit when they try to join the process and are slapped down with a "your vote doesn't matter, n00b!" (which is what it can look like to the untrained eye). -- nae'blis (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It may be better to talk directly to the editors whose actions you disagree with, as they are a minority. Stephen B Streater 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merge from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a vote

On a good suggestion from the above proposed guideline, I've added the content to this front matter:

A request for adminship is not a vote. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are taken into account, but they aren't the be-all and end-all of a request for adminship.

I have also adapted the wording here to remove references to voting. --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not opposed to the spirit of what you are trying to do, but the specific language you chose bothers me. "Be-all and end-all" is undesirably informal in my opinion, and your phrasing undersells the significant role that "votes" do play. Better to say that:
A request for adminship is not a vote. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a key factor in determining consensus to promote, but no specific numerical tally is considered binding on the result.
or something similar. Secondly, your changes to the "expressing opinions" section change its meaning in a way I am not sure how to fix. Traditionally all users, anons included, are allowed to post "comments", but only registered users are allowed to "support"/"oppose". Your version suggests that anons are totally excluded. This is not a change I would favor. The alternative might be to allow anons to "support"/"oppose" as well as "comment", but it is not clear that such a change has been discussed. Dragons flight 01:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was a first cut. On the idea of saying that numbers of people supporting etc "are a key factor", I really don't think that is remotely true. Bureaucrats are now routinely resysopping former admins without even bothering with a single vote. Votes are really the worst thing about RFA and they're definitely no use in determining consensus. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Recent events aside, the fact remains that most RFA outcomes can be predicted simply by counting heads. Whether or not that is a good thing is, of course, a matter of opinion, but I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms if you think that the votes aren't important. Look at how strongly the community reacted to Carnildo's resysoping. People care that they are counted, and get upset when it appears that they are not. RFAs are not just a vote, but the voting is still an important aspect of what they are (for better or worse). Dragons flight 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the guideline reflecting this obvious truth and my feelings are similar to those of the DF. As a proposed solution, I integrated the idea proposed by Tony into the place in the body where it seems to logically belong. I also updated the very obvious for anyone but the newbies part that deals with fraud. --Irpen 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody put the numbers back in. I removed those because I think we want to get away from this misleading idea that it's a beauty contest with a count of votes. For what it's worth, I think it was like that formerly, but it doesn't seem to be any more. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the revert, Tony - editing at lightning speed, a whole minute after I saved my edit! I have no idea why you think "somebody put the numbers back in" - they have been there since before you merged in your language from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a vote earlier today, and none of your edits so far today have taken them out yet. Perhaps you would care to read the diff for my edit and tell me what was wrong with it - all I did was tweak the language that was already there.
I am also slightly confused by your edit comment, which said "Reverrting this. Putting these silly numbers gives completely misleading impression that it's a beauty contest with a count of votes. Not any more." - but then you didn't remove the numbers. Perhaps you would also let us know how you think the bureaucrats ought to decide how there is a consensus without people expressing an opinion on (that is, agreeing or disagreeing) with a candidate request for adminship? I mean, while it is nice for people to explain why they think it is a good idea for someone to be an admin (or not), at them end of the day, it is a pretty binary option.
In any event, I was under the impression that the bureaucrats take the number of people supporting or not supporting a candidate into account as a way of deciding whether there is consensus - at least, that is what they say when you ask them. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. I don't know what the numbers were doing there. I've no idea about the timing of my edit; that must have been a coincidence. You still seem in thea above to think that the only way to determine consensus is to hold a vote. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever?! Well, thanks. You reverted my edit the minute after I made it, back to your previous edit (diff). Presumably you read my changes first? I'm not sure what you are claiming was a coincidence - as I said, the number have been there all along, and none of your edits have removed them.
I apologise if I gave you the impression that I think holding a vote is the only way to find a consensus - far from it; in fact, I would go so far as to say that holding a vote is possibly the worst way to reach a consensus, as it instantly delimits and polarises positions. The best way to is to have a reasoned discussion to identify points of agreement and points of disagreement, with a view to seeking common ground and building upon it so that everyone ends up happy. Unfortunately, with a binary choice, like "admin" or "not admin", there is not a lot of common ground between the positions. The best you can do is to explain why you support or do not support, to identify the underlying reasons.
You seem to think that voting is useless as a mechanism to test consensus. Why do we use a quasi-(super)majority-voting system as a proxy for consensus in so many places, like WP:FAC and the other featured candidates pages, and WP:AFD and the other deletion pages? -- ALoan (Talk) 04:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You do understand the numbers were still in there after every edit you made today, Tony? If you don't like them, maybe you should venture upon an edit that actually removes them, but your last revert [1] does have the appearance of specifically upbraiding ALoan -- for something I guess you now credit he didn't do -- and "whatever" isn't a very civil way of acknowledging a mistake. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll make another effort to remove the misleading numbers. --Tony Sidaway 05:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The version I've arrived at now says:
The bureaucrats who handle administrator promotions review the discussion to see whether there is a general community consensus for promotion. While the numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are taken into consideration, a request for adminship should not be perceived as a vote: the bureaucrats exercise their discretion in deciding whether consensus for promotion of the candidate has been achieved.
I think this correctly reflects the sense of Requests for adminship is not a vote. --Tony Sidaway 05:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, see my edit summary in an explanation to revert. Wait for other editor's opinion. You aren't yet in a position to dictate Policy as you see fit. --Irpen 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a policy page. The section of the front matter that I have changed simply describes the process; the bureaucrats do not just tot up the votes. The above text reflects that fact. I think you're basically just fillibustering. --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And I think you are... whatever. Now, the current text does not suggest that b'crats just tot up the votes. It talks about their discretion and I elaborated on it. Now, please stop persisting with changes that only you think appropriate. I can see how you may want to change the page so that you could hit anyone ever questioning the closure of the particular RfA with your traditional "shut up, case close". I disagree with your changes. I explained why. If and when you show that there is an overall consensus to introduce you changes and I just persist with the fringe opinion, I will desist. Until then, my view counts just as much as yours. So, please stop trying to intimidate me. --Irpen 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


This isn't really a matter of "let's get more input before introducing changes" -- these are not changes. Tony has pointed out an error, or perhaps simply an ambiguity, in the current guidelines for RFA, and has accordingly corrected it. His edits do not say anything that is not already true. — Dan | talk 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check my overview here. --Irpen 07:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Dragonsflight's edit is very good. I'm happy with the current version:
The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus (with few RFAs suceeding with less than 75% support), but a request for adminship should not be perceived as a vote: the bureaucrats exercise their discretion in deciding whether consensus for promotion of the candidate has been achieved. [2]. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And now:

Voting and expressing opinions
Who may vote: Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote, except for the candidate
Who may not vote: ...
To add a vote ...

Continuing to characterize it as a vote iin the instructions at the end undermines the updated wording specifiying that it is not to be perceived as such. Let's make the whole thing consistent and modify these references as well. Dmcdevit·t 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above, there is a current distinction between anons being allowed to "comment" but not being allowed to "support"/"oppose". Calling the later things "votes" incoporates that meaning. I don't mind removing the word "vote", but if doing so is likely to change the meaning of the section as applied to anon contributions (as previous wording proposals have tended to), then I think it should be discussed at WT:RFA. Dragons flight 19:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Without changing the meanings, I'm just trying to draw a distinction between "voting" and "supporting or opposing" (or neutraling). Perhaps changing all the usages to "expressing an opinion," a phrase that is already used further up, would be acceptable? Dmcdevit·t 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA is more than a vote and no one is doubting that. On the other hand, "support", "oppose", "neutral", etc. are votes. The B'crats base their decision not only on those votes and their totals but opinions and discussions expresses there and whatever else they consider important.

Improving the page is a good thing but was happening there lately was an attempt to aggresively push some changes there by brute force defying any objections (mainly by Tony). At the same more measured change was introduced by several editors (myself inscluded) along the same lines through discussion and compromise. The entire development is outline in detail here. Further development should be returned to normalcy by changes proposed and discussed here before being forced into the page. --Irpen 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Be bold and stop trying to describe good faith edits as "forcing". --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
While everything here is an "article", I've always interpreted "be bold" as a reference to updating the main space (that's how it seems to describe itself anyhow). Here's a bold thought: take, say, half the time you're wasting on this and devote it to main space articles—you know, the shit people look at when searching google. You might find it more worthwhile. Marskell 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is forcing you to edit this discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The wasn't solely directed at you (blame it on the lack of second person plural) as it always takes two to waste time on Wiki. I just see so many person hours spent by editors blathering in the Wiki space, I wonder how much better the main space would be if the energy were re-directed. Our policies are not ends-in-themselves but editors, especially long-term editors, tend to treat them as if they are. Marskell 08:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a strange answer to a sound advise. Anyway, when someone observes that you are forcing something it does not mean that anyone accuses you in bad faith. --Irpen 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes it does. It's an accusation (clearly false in this case) that I'm trying to progress matters knowingly against clear and reasonable resistance. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are trying to progress matters knowingly adainst a clear and reasonable resistance as indicated by a number of people who object. However, bad faith implies "malicious motive". No one said that your motives were malicious. You think you are doing the right thing and others are wrong. Instead of reasoning to try to convince your opponents, or trying to see what they are saying (perhaps they are right), or trying to seek a mutually acceptable compromise that would suite all, you are trying to force your changes in anyway throwing accusations liberally left and right. --Irpen 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the discussion above and I'm not sure it's getting very far.... I'm in favour of removing all uses of the word "vote" in this front matter and may take a crack at it myself later today if someone doesn't beat me to it. I know it has been tried before but maybe this time? --Lar 13:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think just removing the word "vote" is a cosmetic change that won't make any real difference (other than obscuring what exactly IP editors may do at RfA). If you want RfA not to be a vote (it was pretty much vote-like for most of the time I watched it) you need to change the process, not how comments are called. Kusma talk 13:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The process already changed. This is just a change to catch up with that. --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
So what is the process like right now? I see it is not a vote, and have just recently learned that also consensus is not exclusively used to determine whether a promotion should take place. So what is RfA? Kusma talk 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Dunno exactly what it is, don't particularly care. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony, for someone who doesn't know (and who doesn't particularly care) what the current process is, it seems rather odd that you seem to know precisely (and care passionately about) how it should be described.
I wonder if there really are any conclusions to draw from the recent Carnildo debacle. Taxman has referred on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship to "extenuating circumstances" in the recent case, and Kelly Martin on WP:BN has indicated that the extenuating circumstances were that the nomination was discussed by current and former members of ArbCom and various bureaucrats, both before the nomination was made and also before the decision was taken to re-admin, and that the bureaucrats making the decision were made aware that the ArbCom would support re-adminning him.
Perhaps we can say that the bureaucrats are still deciding RFAs by reference to consensus, just that the opinions as expressed by participants in the RFA process are not quite as, um, indicative or determinative of community consensus as we thought they were, and that the views of bureaucrats and ArbCom members seem to be given more weight (or carry more "gravity"). Or perhaps that the ArbCom and bureaucrats know the "right thing" (WP:IAR) when they see it, and don't care what anyone else thinks. Alternatively, since exceptional cases make bad law, perhaps this is just an exceptional case and no conclusions should be drawn from it-- ALoan (Talk) 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Reviewing ALoan's alternatives:

Option 1: The bureaucrats are still deciding RFAs by reference to consensus, just that the opinions as expressed by participants in the RFA process are not quite as, um, indicative or determinative of community consensus as we thought they were. User:ALoan

Good example of doubletalk. I agree that no vote on Wikipedia can be indicative of community consensus because (a) any vote is inherently a tiny fraction of 1% of the entire community. Even if every last admin voted, that vote would represent 1/10 of 1% of the entire Wikipedia English community. Since RFA votes typically run a couple of hundred votes or less, you're talking about 1/50 of 1% of the entire community. Statistically speaking, voted on Wikipedia cannot be a good proxy for consensus because of non-randomness due to self-selection and the possibility that most users are not even aware of a vote in progress. (As a side note, I am both amused and aggravated when someone wants to claim that a 4-1 vote represents a consensus about text of an article and that any attempt to change text against that "consensus" is unacceptable.

All that having been said, votes are the only proxy we have for gauging consensus. If the opinions expressed in the RFA vote are not indicative of community consensus, then what is?

Option 2: The views of bureaucrats and ArbCom members seem to be given more weight (or carry more "gravity").

This seems to be the way things work at least some times. Well, at least for the Carnildo RFA and one other "low threshold" RFA whose name I can't remember. The only question is whether this is the way things will work most of the time or just for these couple of cases. It seems clear that it's only for a couple of cases.

Option 3: The ArbCom and bureaucrats know the "right thing" (WP:IAR) when they see it, and don't care what anyone else thinks.

This may be true but it would be very bad because it would suggest, as some people have charged, that the RFA vote is a charade. Why waste everybody's time then?

Option 4: Exceptional cases make bad law, perhaps this is just an exceptional case and no conclusions should be drawn from it

I would reword this. Exceptional cases make bad law and so this case does not set a precedent. We can still draw conclusions about what sorts of cases are exceptional but we would not want to use the Carnildo case to set precedents such as consensus is 60%+ or crats can totally ignore the consensus of the community.

--Richard 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are only 4200 "active contributors" contributing more than 100 edits per month. RFA votes with hundreds of opinions are a small percentage, but not a tiny percentage, of the active editorship. Dragons flight 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This all reminds me of kremlinology and the like. The only thing that can be said is that it isn't a vote. Of course the views of 100 or so ill-informed RFA junkies count for little in the context of deciding who is likely to be a good administrator, but that's so obvious it hardly needs to be stated. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
If what Tony says about "the views of 100 or so ill-informed RFA junkies..." is true, then what's the point of an RFA vote at all? Why not get rid of the vote altogether? Or, limit the vote to admins? --Richard 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no vote. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am rather surprised by Tony's characterisation of RFA participants as "ill-informed RFA junkies". I wonder if he holds such a damning opinion about everyone who is involved in writing this encyclopedia, or only those participate in the behind-the scenes aspects, or perhaps his scorn is reserved for those who make little or no regular contributions to the encyclopedia (you know, that thing we are writing)? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read my statement. I did not say what you thought I said. --Tony Sidaway 17:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's how I would interpret what Tony said: There exists at least one RFA process such that, in that RFA process, approximately 100 (+/- 20 to be generous) ill-informed RFA junkies (aka IRJ) expressed views and the views of those IRJs should count for little. Alternatively, IF there were an RFA process such that etc. ...
Presumably, b-crats look at the "votes/opinions" and discount the votes of anybody who appears to be an IIRJ. Presumably, this is what Tony thinks happened with Carnildo and the other RFA that had a lower-than-usual level of support.
However, my question still stands. What is the point of holding an RFA "expression of opinion" non-vote? --Richard 18:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, Tony, have re-read it, and I still think you said "the views of 100 or so ill-informed RFA junkies count for little in the context of deciding who is likely to be a good administrator", and I am still surprised that you would characterise around 100 RFA participants in this manner ("ill-informed", "count for little").
Perhaps my generalisation of your statement was a little too sweeping, and you are confining yourself to a subset of those who regularly participate on RFA, and only saying that they are "ill-informed" and their views only "count for little" in the context of RFA. To confirm my understanding, are you saying that there are around 100 RFA regulars (perhaps you have a list?) who are "ill-informed" and whose views "count for little"? (If so, perhaps there are other RFA regulars (not on the list) who are (fortunately) not so "ill-informed" and whose views do "count" more than "little"?) Is this view confined to these RFA regulars' participation in RFA, and they should not be considered to be "ill-informed" and having views that "count for little" in other contexts?
If I am still off-beam, I should be very grateful if you would explain what you think I think you said, and why what you think I think you said is not what you said (or perhaps what you meant). -- ALoan (Talk)
I think you think I said what you said I said. --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh good. Now we know what you said (which was up there all the time, after all) pretty please would you let us know what you meant, which seems to be something other than what I thought you meant. (This is all a bit Tweedledum and Tweedledee, but ho hum.) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I agree that this is one of the more surreal exchanges I've ever participated in on Wikipedia, but normally I don't actually have to say that what I said is what I mean. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Now Tony is playing word games. His latest post amounts to "I think you think you know what I said." which has little value as far as contributing to the dialogue.

If you ignore the implications of the number "100" that Tony threw into his statement, Tony's statement is non-objectionable. If we know for sure that a RFA "vote/opinion" is ill-informed, then of course that vote should count for little if it counts at all. This, rightly or wrongly, was the charge being made against Masssiveego for his almost consistent opposition to just about every RFA candidate. And while I disagree with the targeting of Masssiveego, I think the principle is valid in general.

One could also argue that there are a bunch of "me too" support votes that might also be ill-informed although it's not clear that anybody gets very exercised about those. Presumably the 75%+ criterion helps compensate for the possibility that some of the support votes might not be terribly well-informed.

When public hearings are held in the U.S. on a matter, the number of speakers for or against the issue at hand does count for something but they are more a forum for people to be heard than to actually decide on the matter. They ensure that all points of view are aired and then the decision-making body takes it all under advisement and makes a decision. If there is a public outcry about a proposed issue, the decision-making body might hesitate before going forward with an unpopular decision but the public hearing is "not a vote".

I think Tony's "RFA is not a vote" runs along these lines.

(rationale for strikeout) Remove implication that the text describes Tony's position as he disclaims that it represents his thinking. --Richard 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the job of a bureaucrat is to sift through all the opinions and weigh the positive and negative evidence and opinions and come up with "the right decision". We could argue that the numerical tally has about as much meaning as it does in a public hearing. We're interested in the evidence and the rationale for a person's opinion rather than the actual number of votes on either side. If we recast it this way, then tallies of opinions are irrelevant and so too are thresholds like 75%+. The criterion should be "no show-stopping objections".

Note, however, that we start dispensing with the concept of "consensus" here. I still maintain that you cannot even approximate consensus without a vote.

This approach is less democratic (in the sense of not being a majority vote) but Wikipedia is NOT a pure democracy. And neither is the government of any country in the world.

--Richard 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit much to say "Tony is playing word games" when in fact I have only said, throughout, precisely what I mean.
Your attempt to interpret my statement "Wikipedia is not a vote" bears no relation to what I have said, which is (and I'm sorry to have to labor this fact) solely "Wikipedia is not a vote". --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to understand what Tony said

Tony has said three things (among many others but let's focus on these three)

1) RFA is not a vote

2) I don't know what RFA is and I don't much care

3) The views of 100 ill-informed RFA junkies should not count for much (a paraphrase)

Let's start with #2. Tony may not care what an RFA is but many people do and want to know. Presumably, Tony doesn't care because he trusts the crats. Others aren't as willing to commit to that level of trust.

Many people think the RFA process IS a vote. With #1, Tony is attempting to disabuse them of that conception but by asserting simply that it ISNT't a vote without telling them what it IS. #3 is a good example of why the job of a crat in closing an RFA is not a simple vote-counting exercise.

Now, I have proposed a way of communicating the essence of what the RFA process is by proposing the model of a public hearing in which opinions are expressed, heard and taken into consideration without numerical tallies being the decisive factor in the final decision.

Tony does not seem to value this approach as being helpful. For my part, I think it is helpful at least in giving me a model to move towards if I am to move away from the consensus model. Wikipedia loves to tout the consensus model but it seems to me that, at least in RFA, it is the wrong model and we murder the English language by trying to fit it to the RFA process (cf. Carnildo's RFA).

--Richard 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The part of my initial posting in this message before "Now, I have proposed..." is my interpretation of what you have said and why. I believe that all of it is supported in your postings here and elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Can you indicate where I have "recast your statements as something other than what they are"?
If there were general agreement that RFA is not a vote, then there wouldn't have been an edit-war over "tallies" vs. "vote tallies" and there would not have been objection to your recent edit asserting that "RFA is not a vote".
In the context of discussion on your Talk Page, it is not the case that, when a bunch of well-respected Wikipedians agree with you, there is therefore "general agreement". You may even be right in your assertion that RFA is not a vote. Heck, I even more or less agree with you on that. What I disagree with you on is whether there is a "general agreement" that RFA is not a vote. If there were, there wouldn't have been a large outcry over the Carnildo RFA and you would not have felt it necessary to assert it in a revision of this page.
In the context of discussions on your Talk Page, words like "ridiculous attempt" are generally considered dismissive. Some would even consider it incivility. If you think that I have incorrectly or inappropriately recast your comments, it is possible to say so without the added extra editorial comment.
--Richard 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A problem caused by User:Ral315's change of "vote" -> "comment"

I understand what Ral315 was trying to do by changing "vote" -> "comment" but he/she may not have realized that this change resulted in changing "users without an account and/or not logged in may not vote" to "users without an account and/or not logged in may not comment" which is a significant change from the status quo ante which allowed such users to comment but not vote.

I don't know how to fix this so I'm just going to note the problem here and see what other people think.

--Richard 04:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment there, except for the candidate" also becomes a problem. Of course, candidates are welcome to comment on the comments of others, they just can't make "vote-like" comments. Such is the difficulty of linguistic gymanistics I suppose ("thou shalt not use the word vote"). Marskell 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vote->comment

With all those linguistic exercises we seem to make RfA significantly more restrictive. Before anybody (including anonims, new users and even sock puppets) could express their opinion, present diffs or ask the questions. Now we explicitly forbid this. Is it intentional? I could assume an anonim or a new user may be a subject of abuse from a candidate or an established user may be afraid to present a strong evidence. Yes, obvious vandalism or trolling should be reverted but the valid comments should stay. I propose to say that the new users and anonims may not comment in the support, oppose and neutral sections but are welcome to participate in the comments and ask questions abakharev 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question about soliciting opinions for an RFA

To my understanding, it's been a long-standing unwritten rule that RFA candidates are not supposed to campaign for support by soliciting such support on Wikipedia pages whether they be Talk Pages, User Talk Pages or whatever.

Now, presumably this unwrittenrule stems from a desire to keep RFA candidates from stacking the "vote" with their WikiCronies. I've always thought this rule to be a bad idea because it tends to restrict RFA voting to RFA junkies rather than opening it up to editors who may be bona fide Wikipedians who don't happen to watch WP:RFA.

So... my question is: now that we are moving towards "RFA is not a vote", what's wrong with promoting one's own RFA? If numerical tallies aren't that important and the opinions expressed are more important than the numerical tally, then campaigning for support should be OK, right?

Or, is it the case that numerical tallies are still pretty important?

--Richard 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If the candidate has good interactions with users, they should provide links to them. Calling their friends in is just going to get a bunch of "me-too he is great" comments that don't add much to the discussion. It also still biases it: insofar as the "he's great" comments show his positive interactions with users, the fact remains that he did not solicit the opinions of the people who hate him. Even though it is not a vote, each of these comments is still supposed to be a data point, and advertising skews those data points. The relatively unrelated RfA people perusing contributions, however, should be the ones to provide the data points. Compared to advertising with friends, that is rather random. —Centrx→talk • 02:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointers to dispute resolution and administrator removal process.

I reworded the "administrator actions are reversable" sentance to point to [3] and [4] as I feel that knowing that there are process for dealing with "bad" administrators and their actions are important to those participating in the process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to instruction paragraph

I've made some changes to the instructions on this page. This included modifying the nomination process a bit, changing three-six months to four-six months, and stressing the neccessity to have read WP:GRFA. Does anyone disagree with these changes? Picaroon9288 01:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not bad! Addresses in a much better way the (frustrated?) revision[5] made by Moreschi earlier today. However, you may wish to consider moving "All nominees must have carefully read the guide to requests for adminship before accepting." from its current placement up to "Nomination standards" or "Decision process". In fact, it might not hurt to have a mention of this in both "Decision process" (or "Nomination standards") and "Current nominations for adminship". Agent 86 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What worries me is that standards are becoming more and more rigid and more and more formal. While undoubtly it is not as easy to become admin as it used to, and adminship is indeed a big deal, having a statement in the RfA page which basically amounts to "don't even dare venture here unless you've been around for half a year" strikes me as too much. I preferred the old way of informal standards, even if that brought the risks of uninformed newbies venturing in some time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why on earth four months? I've seen people pass with two. >Radiant< 08:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed. /Archive_68#August_2006_WP:RFA_in_Review indicates that at least some RFAs by users with between 2 and 4 months experience succeeded. I don't think it's possible to calculate how many succeeded from that summary, we'd need Durin to look at the original data. --Tango 10:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In the last six months, we've had 50 nominations for people with between two and four months time on Wikipedia. 8 were successful, 42 were not. --Durin 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • So can we infer that three months is reasonable? >Radiant< 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      No, not unless Durin tells us those 8 had over 3 months experience. I would say "very rarely" means 1 or 2 a year, so if more than 1 person with less than 3 months has been promoted in the last 6 months, the intro needs to stick with saying you need 2 months. --Tango 13:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just one with less than three months experience was promoted in the last six months. That was Nacokantari, who also had 18000 plus edits at the time. That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with setting a bar. --Durin 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure what to do - if there had been none, the bar would probably have been justified, had there been more than 1, it wouldn't have been. Exactly one is a little tricky... Do you have data going back any further that might help? --Tango 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have data going back to June of 2005. But, I doubt going through data older than 6 months will help in this case, as standards have slowly risen over time. --Durin 18:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think December 2005 (when the edit requirements were like 2,000 edits) saw a couple of admins under three months. – Chacor 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In response to the above:
By changing three to four, I wasn't trying to set a bar. As you could see in my standards in that standards list, four months isn't even my personal opinion. But the general trend of opposes and neutrals (that I've read, at least) is that "3 months isn't enough," regardless of whether this is a fair standard. From Durin's comment, it seems that the statistics agree. Anyways, I was just trying to reflect what I've seen in various RFAs, and save new editors some trouble.
By adding the note on the guidelines, I was trying to stress the necessity of carefully reading WP:GRFA as close to the placement of RFAs as possible, albeit in a less harsh way than Moreschi. You can tell in many of the newbie nominations that they haven't read the guide at all, and maybe even not the top few paragraphs of this page. But feel free to revert my changes; I was merely trying to start a bold, revert, discuss cycle (which seems to have, so far, skipped the revert step.) Picaroon9288 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, world. Yes - the idea behind my edit was basically that I was sick of seeing pile-on opposes in newbie RFAs, either because they'd been too lazy to read the guidelines or because they hadn't actually seen the links to them in the first place. I think Picaroon's edits are on the right lines, but it needs to be more emphasised how high the bar is set and bits have to be either in bold or in italics. It has to jump off the page at you. I wasn't trying to set a bar either, just to be realistic. BTW, I must point out that the distress caused by seeing some (perhaps) over-forceful wording is far less than the distress caused by your RFA getting slaughtered in a pile-on oppose. Best to all, Moreschi 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a problem with no-one bothering to even nominate for RFA any more, and so the requirement guideliness get upped. Um. - David Gerard 09:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as my current RfA seems to prove, most Wikis are interested in jacks-of-all-trades, not single-minded Admins who will excel at a dedicated issue. And maybe I'm missing the boat, but it seems that a great editor might not be a great Admin. There's some constructive criticism, but the "you need x edits" seems silly. I have a job and a family. Just because I'm not editing thousands of articles doesn't mean I couldn't patrol vandalism more effectively with Admin tools. But again, I might just be missing the point. C'est la vie. SkerHawx 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates should be aware that it is highly unlikely...

Durin deleted the following statement which I had inserted a month or more ago:

In particular, candidates should be aware that it is highly unlikely that an editor with less than 2 months and 1500 edits will be granted adminship.

Durin's edit summary was "Removing arbitrary, no consensus 2 month/1500 edit slipper slope standard. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_69#Down_with_editcountitis.21"

Centrx reverted Durin's deletion with the following edit summary "It is not arbitrary, there was agreement on it, and it helps to stop newcomers from posting failing RfAs the inevitable result of which is the person being dishearted by the heavy opposition."

I figured I had best explain why I put the sentence there and also defend its continued inclusion in the section.

Actually, despite what Centx said, I don't think there was a formal agreement in the sense of a straw poll. However, I will comment that I deliberately put the numbers way below what I think are the real lower bounds as observed in recent RFAs. What I mean by this is that most people who care about edit counts set the limit in the range of 2000-3000 edits. Also 3 months is the usual lower bound cited by people who care about time elapsed since joining Wikipedia.

I inserted the text in question after a few very new editors submitted RFAs with very few edits and often very little time elapsed since joining Wikipedia. These editors were getting their RFAs turned down quite quickly but it seemed to me to be a big waste of everybody's time. Why not just tell people what to expect and suggest that they wait until they had at least some chance?

I deliberately worded the sentence so that it wouldn't be a statement of policy but simply a statement of fact. Does anybody challenge the truth of the statement "It is highly unlikely..."? If so, can you name an admin in the recent past who has been promoted with less than 2 months and 1500 edits? Frankly, even 3 months and 3000 edits only just barely passes the experience/edit-count Mafia. Some still look for 6 months or 5000 edits but they are not usually numerous enough to kill an RFA on those grounds alone. By comparison, someone with less than 3 months and 3000 edits will almost certainly get at least 10-15 votes against on those grounds alone. And 10-15 votes in opposition is enough to kill most RFAs (with the exception of unusual circumstances such as Carnildo, of course).

Recently, we've seen people like User:Hamedog get turned down with 1 year's experience and 5000 edits. So, we all agree that it's not just raw edit count and time elapsed. However, if a candidate has less than 3 months and 3000 edits, they don't even get the level of scrutiny that Hamedog got.

So, remember, the purpose of the sentence is to discourage those that have no chance of passing an RFA in the current climate.

If you disagree with time-since-joining-itis and edit-countitis, then please find another way to challenge this sentiment among the "RFA-junkies". I'm just trying to document the current climate in RFA-land. If the climate changes, I'd be happy to remove or change the sentence accordingly.

--Richard 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There are serious issues with this statement, not the least of which is that it is a slippery slope situation. As soon as you start to state standards like this, they will creep and creep and creep up. Two years from now that sentence, if left, will read "6 months and 5000 edits". Where does it stop? Where? Stating standards like this doesn't work to undermine the editcountitis types in ANY respect. No, it actually works to SUPPORT editcountitis by clearly stating a standard that people must be above. By adding this sentence you lend credence to the editcountitis types who now can say, "Aha! See? There really IS a standard!" We have been fighting long and hard against editcountitis. Putting this sentence in undermines that effort.
  • Worse, it's unlikely it's had any effect in the way that was intended. The intent was to get people who are making RfA requests with less than that standard to stop applying and wasting RfA watcher's time. I don't have the time to run the stats right now, but I would venture to guess that since this sentence was added on September 18th, there's been no change in the number of RfAs for candidates below this standard. If that be the case, not only is it feeding the editcountitis trolls, it's also not doing what it was intended to do.
  • I strongly disagree with Centrx's edit summary that there was consensus to include this. There clearly wasn't, and even the person who added the sentence said in their edit summary "Being bold..."
  • I would also like to point out that there have been some RfAs where the candidates have been very upset their RfA failed because they did read the standards and thought if they had >1000 edits they'd be ok and found they were raked over the coals for having just 1800 edits. They are rightfully mad. This provides strong impetus to keep tinkering with the standard until such complaints are not heard as often. Result; the standard will keep rising and rising and rising and rising.
  • This is bad medicine, for the wrong disease, without giving a cure, in the wrong hospital. If you must include it, then get some consensus at WT:RFA. --Durin 11:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Durin, particularly on the last point. The major problem with this is not that it suggests people below the threshold will fail, but rather that people above it will pass. Candidates with 2 mos + 1 day and 1501 edits are still ripe for failing with the current crowd. And, of course, choosing any number invites the "this, why not that?" problem. Marskell 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of that text. Having formal standards for adminship is a bad idea, and using edit counts as a standard is worse. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standards subpage, redux?

Waaaay back in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_72#Editcountitis_redux we talked about deprecating the "Standards" subpage; to my reading (and I am admittedly biased, being in favor of deprecation) no one raised any significant objection. Was this reversed somewhere else, did it just never get implemented, or am I reading things wrong? -- nae'blis 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_adminship_Front_matter_5a96.html"