Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 69

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Beaucrats: Not mindless drones, a rant by EFG

I'm going to go ahead and stand against popular belief: Beaucrats are not mindless drones. When a user, such as Spartaz, votes oppose on an RFA, such as The Halo, and the rationale is somewhat controversial, such as being based partly on the nominator, the closing beaucrat will be able to discern the merit of that vote without ten meaningless responses which add little to the overall discussion and mostly question how much they can harass user(s) who dared to vote oppose on ridiculous/spiteful/evil grounds. Just throwing that out there. Perhaps the jist of that sentence could be added to the top of WP:RFA? EFG 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a few links to RfA decisions by bureaucrats that reflect their "model behaviour?" Are there precedents we can turn to for guidance? Rama's arrow 13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

New idea of nomination process

As I was thinking about that the nominatiopn process shouldn't be considered as a vote, I've came up with this idea for reformation of the process:

The nominator forst as usual apply a nomination for a nominee, another person or him/her self, and then the nominee approve or reject the nomination and as usual reply to some standard questions. The main difference is that now when a user have read the nomination, he/she has the option to sign that he/she have read the nomination, not that he/she support it or reject it. The user have thou an option now to add a comment with reasons against the nomination, or some neutral comment covering the nomination/nominee, but he/she may not simply add a comment with the sole purpouse saying "I support this nomination", because that's irrelevant.

The logic for this system is "A user should be appointed administrator unless there are reason against that", valid reason could be that he/she havn't been on the wikipedia too long, have had receent uncivil discussions etc...

_→AzaToth 16:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a good idea. I have a question - can you elaborate on how the bureaucrat should come to a decision regarding consensus? Does he/she still have to count how many criticize the nominee and how many approve? Rama's arrow 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean, if there are a couple of criticisms while a larger number have a favorable opinion, what decision should emerge? Rama's arrow 17:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Be mindful of one thing - if people have negative or "pseudo-political" intentions, these will manifest in any system one devises in one way or another. There is a good chance for your idea to address some issues, but it needs to be clear and decisive. Rama's arrow 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a system where people can object to objections... _→AzaToth 18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See {{RfA/Draft}} for a draft I made how I think it could be. _→AzaToth 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbered voting?

Where was the decision made to start using * instead of # in RFA's?--Jersey Devil 21:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Centrx did it here. Looks like a WP:BOLD. Not even an edit summary is there. --Ligulem 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not his only bold action regarding "voting" recently... See here. Seems like some particularly pointed boldness to me. --tjstrf 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has annoyed me. It's not a vote, but is there any reason to make it difficult to count votes just to illustrate that it's not a vote? "Lets make it more difficult for everyone to read so they know it's not a vote". We know it's not a vote... --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I share the exact same sentiments.--Jersey Devil 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"It's not a vote, but is there any reason to make it difficult to count votes" – that didn't quite... make any sense to me. Since it's not a vote, you don't even have to count any votes. Especially since you wouldn't find any votes to count were you to try anyway. How do the soothing little dots next to everyone's comments make them harder to read, of all things? Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make it more difficult to read. All it does is make it more difficult to count votes, which is a problem why? A person can still see the relative magnitude of support and opposition, it just means they can't easily determine whether 51 or 53 people support, which is pointless. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My "quotation" misrepresented my views, apologies. I was in a bit of a frenzy when typing it so I was rather hasty and made a mistake. Anyway, I like counting votes. 80% is the accepted standard for RfAs passing (though this "rule" varies) and I like to see how close RfAs to that threshold. This makes it unneccesarily diffcult for the people reading it and the bcrats evaluating it, since they will use the 80% threshold rule for 99.9% of the nominations. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like numbered and sectioned voting because it makes it easier to get a sense of the overall tenor of an RFA. Perhaps it is not a "vote", but I will rarely take the time to develop an "opinion" unless the "votes" suggest the candidate is potentially controversial. Oh, and the recent changes to {{RfA}} (history) and active RFAs are not being friendly to bots (DF summary, Tango summary), which is one reason why it is nice to discuss these things in advance, so bots have a chance to adjust. Dragons flight 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the view to keep the comments numbered and sectioned, but a simple discussion section without numbers would allow for bureaucrats to determine consensus based on the discussion that transpires. This way, RfA truly wouldn't be a vote. In this system, the quality of comments would overshadow the quantity hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And you believe Bureaucrats have trouble determining consensus when things are numbered and broken into sections? This is a cosmetic change, not a functional change. How we display "votes" is a seperate issue from how Bureaucrats decide RFAs. For my part, I'd rather display the information in a way I find useful rather than mix them all together. Dragons flight 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also fail to see how replacing the numbered lists (#) with unnumbered lists (*) will help in any way the bureaucrats deciding whom to promote.

Also, while comments about "quality" versus "quantity" are apprciated, I do not believe that looking only at the "quality" of opinions expressed while ignoring the amount of people who thought one way or another will improve the RfA process, rather the other way around. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I definitely agree that the numbers should not be ignored, but the discussion format would lend to, well, discussion, and perhaps foster an environment that would allow more free-flowing opinions and comments to the candidate's merit. In regards to how bureaucrats decide RfA's, I wasn't suggesting changing how bureaucreats decide RfA's. Personally, I think it's up to the closing bureaucrat to formulate his own evaluation criteria (which should be published somewhere on Wikipedia). The cosmetic change would simply allow for the "note a vote" ideology to become practise, rather than just something we say hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh of all the doubleplusgoodnewspeak I've seen.... -Splash - tk 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Have we considered asking the bureacrats what they think? We should use whichever method they find more preferable imo. --tjstrf 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer sticking with the #. This doesn't mean it is a vote. --Ligulem 00:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We could also merge people's comments together into one very very long paragraph, to prevent people from just counting up the number of dots. That'll show 'em! --W.marsh 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A cunning plan, but we'd also have to remove the full stops to stop people counting those instead. -Splash - tk 00:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, just forbid signing your name in RfA discussions, so that they can't tell who said what. And require that the page be cut-and-paste moved prior to viewing by the bureacrat so he can't check history. --tjstrf 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am seeing no consensus not to number votes. Should I change it back? - Mike 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The numbered system seems the most convenient, which is what we should aim for. --tjstrf 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I don't really feel like editing the one RfA that is like that though, so if somebody else would do that, great. - Mike 00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --physicq210 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've protected {{RfA}} because there are already ~5 reverts/conflicting changes in the last four hours to this important template. Pleaes come up with a concensus first until making further changes to the template. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a vote. That should be agreed. WP isn't a democracy. 'crats are elected to use disgression, not for their abilities in statistical analysis. I think the above discussion shows why numbering is a terrible idea, because it is trapping otherwise intelligent people into thinking it is a vote and it is about counting things, even as they deny that it is a vote. I mean, we've got crazy stuff like this [1], complete with colours to show who is statistically passing. Where is the discussion in this? It is wrong, wrong, wrong. '#' encourages people to say '#Support--~~~~, which isn't a discussion and should immediately be discounted anyway. The numbers just have to go if we are to move the discussion forward. We need a change of climate in RfA, and since we'll never agree a new system, lets start with this minor change int he template.--Doc 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the section above, I've made a draft for a change of process. _→AzaToth 01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But this is just so much standardised rhetoric. Who in e.g. this section of the page is even close to suggesting it's a vote? I do not see anyone making such a claim. In other sections? Very new users, perhaps, but that's just a matter of education. Replacing # with * isn't going to cause anything to shift. Furthermore, replacing the whole thing with a series of bullet points isn't going to stop people putting the word support or oppose in bold somewhere in their unlikely-to-be-more-than-a-few-lines comment. What edits Dragonsflight chooses to make is no reflection on the "intelligent people" you cite. Wrong, wrong, wrong is being trapped into thinking that people think it's a vote when they are saying it isn't. -Splash - tk 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Crazy stuff, well thanks. Of course it is not a vote, that's what the reasons and discussions are for. Think about it, where else in this world is a "vote" accompanied by a record of your reasoning that can sway others. And of course it is like a vote. Any system where having less than 50% support has never passed and having greater than 80% support has never failed definitely has vote aspects. The foundation of our community is consensus and that requires establishing agreement, which can be measured and quantified. I'm sick of "Its not a vote", being taken as a mantra as if ever quantifying opinions will destroy civilization. Voting can be helpful and democratic principles are a good way of working within a large organization. We don't just vote, and we don't just discuss. We do both and it is better that way. I don't believe that moving towards either extreme is going to improve Wikipedia. Dragons flight 02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Often, there is nothing to say but #Support--~~~~ because the nomination says it all. It's just a way of expressing that you would like to see a user become an admin, but you really have nothing to add to that besides possibly "per nom" or "per all above". Discounting this vote is extremely unfair, because it hurts the nomination process and tells Wikipedians "your opinion doesn't matter as much as this guy's does". Also, keep in mind that this indeed is not total democracy just because voting is involved. Remember that RfAs are straw polls, which ultimately makes them "non-binding" anyway. Also, in democracy, a simple majority is all that is needed for something to pass (in the vast majority of cases, anyway). If this were the case, then somebody who got 51% support on their RfA would become and admin. But that's not what we do is it? No. We aim for consensus, and numbering the votes is an easy way to see what kind of a consensus there is. When you a tally "75 support, 3 oppose, 5 neutral" you can say "okay, there is a general consensus that this guy/gal should become and admin. However when you a see a tally of "40 support 32 oppose 10 neutral you can say "Hmm..there is majority support here, but it's obviously no consensus. For now, this guy/gal shouldn't ba an admin." Not numbering the tally makes for unnecesary hassle in the nomination closing process that can easily be elminated (not to mention it makes the whole nomination process more confusing). In addition, not numbering the votes can lead to many unfair outcomes. For example: Suppose Jim Bob Smith was running for admin, and he ended up with a final tally of 55/15/10 and was denied adminship, but just the day before, Billy Bob Johnson became an admin with a final tally of 55/20/10. There was more of a consensus tht Joe Bob should've been and admin, but he was denied the oppurtuniy! I know that this could still happen occasionally now, but this new change would make that sort of thing much more common. Let's not be paranoid that we may be doing something against this here. Let's instead take into account this, and this and do what makes logical sense. - Mike 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but your example is flawed. A person with 55/20/10 support but mostly frivolous arguments against him or very good arguments in his favour might merit passing, where an individual with a 55/15/10, but significant concerns brought in near the end of the nomination (and hence not considered by most participants) might not if those concerns were serious enough. Judgments must always be made case-by-case. --tjstrf 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but that wasn't exactly the point. There will always be exceptions. The point was, that one got more support than the other did (supposing that arguaments for both support and oppose were reasonable), but the one that got less support passed. It can happen as it is now, but if we move away from the number, it will be more difficult to tell whether or not there is a consensus, and will also lead to lots more unfair promotions/denials. - Mike 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide an archived example where a bureaucrat disregarded the count (owing to frivolous oppose arguments) to promote a person? As far as I'm aware, bureaucrats do hesitate a lot in deciding which argument is "frivolous." Rama's arrow 13:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good lord, why not just leave the numbering in? We've already established that RFA is not a vote. The numbering is "for information purposes only". Sheesh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA page not transcluding properly

Is anyone getting the top RfA to be doing weird stuff to the page? JoshuaZ 22:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor formatting and hidden comment changes

Does anyone object to the minor formatting and hidden comment changes that I made? I removed an extra "----" (horizontal line), merged two adjacent hidden comments into one, and added , because I think I remember one being placed at the bottom a few days ago. I assume no one has any problems with these; am I correct? Picaroon9288 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Definite format of the RfA template

The {{RfA}} template has been the site of a recent edit war. As of now, the Support/Oppose/Neutral/Comments fields are gone, yet there is a tally (0/0/0), and that does not make sense.

I believe an honest discussion on whether the support/oppose/neutral fields should be in, and if the votes should be numbered, did not take yet place, rather, people were revert warring. So, is the current format what the community prefers? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted edits which appearently violated WP:PPol#Editing protected pages, may everyone please follow WP:PPol#Editing protected pages for future edits to that page? Many thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be so much easier if people like you would simply stop protecting the wrong version. Dragons flight 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am open to revert to an much earlier version, before all these have started. Btw, not protecting the wrong version would allow the edit war to continue, which I believed would be very undesireable for this important template. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I think I was little bit tired and misunderstood Dragons flight's comment, just ignore my last bit --WinHunter ^(talk) 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:PPol#Editing protected pages: "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.", I am inclined to revert to this version dated 16:04, 10 September 2006 by Voice of All as a temporary remedy until concensus emerge as of how to edit the {{RfA}} template. Any comments? --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Winhunter and I have had a long discussion about this on our talk pages, if anyone wants to see how he arrived at that version. It is not an easy task to narrow it down. Agent 86 00:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Down with editcountitis!

I've been thinking about the statistics in Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages and about problems we might solve from looking at the other language Wikipedias. It turns out that one of our persistent problems is mostly absent in the other languages, and that we could easily remedy it for us as well. I'm talking about editcountitis.

Since everyone at RFA is free to make up their own metrics, we frequently get metrics all over the scale - should a candidate have nine months of experience? How about 200 edits to the wikipedia talk namespace? Maybe 10% of all edits to policy-related discussion? Or is it all "no big deal" for everyone? All the differences combine to make RFA a haphazard and confusing place. Adminship is supposed to be about two things: experience, and trust. By focusing too much on arbitrary metrics for experience, we lose sight of the important issue of trust. It also means we're disqualifying trustworthy people on the basis of arbitrary metrics.

Thus, what I propose is to make a unified metric for experience. Make it clear at the top of the page that to become an admin you need X months time and Y edits and community trust. Make RFA focus on the latter. By choosing, for instance, two months and 1500 edits, we weed out the obvious beginners while keeping the barrier low for serious editors. This should make RFA less newbie-biting, less confusing, and more fair to those involved. Incidentally this is what the Dutch, French, Italian, Norwegian, Polish and Russian 'pedias do, and it works fine with them.

I'm sure that someone will yell "instruction creep, we don't need no stinkin' metric", but I'd say that any metric that is reasonably agreed upon is better than dozens of random metrics depending on who is active this week.

Comments please? >Radiant< 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't put much credence in edit counts themselves, I prefer to look at the breakdown. (Counters like Voice of All's or mine can give more detailed information). I also look at the contributions by hand (especially seeing where the Wikipedia:-space edits are and how inflated the mainspace count is). After all that, I usually don't vote! However, I agree that WP:BITE will be met better if there is some way of discouraging very new users from applying, but am worried that people may apply as soon as they meet the threshold. --ais523 17:09, 19 September 2006 (U T C)

Yes. I would prefer a higher metric, but surely everyone can agree to two months and 1500 edits as a lower bound. —Centrx→talk • 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit counting is a bad idea because it attempts to quantify something that is unquantifiable, namely experience. Your proposal is another manifestation of that bad idea. If you're looking for a unified experience metric, edit counts aren't going to work no matter how high you set the number. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at edit counts is bad for saying that the 10,000-edit user is better than the 5,000-edit user, but the fact remains that 1500 edits is a very low number if the person has been doing any administrative tasks that would demonstrate the experience and use for admin tools; it is indeed "highly unlikely" that an editor with such a number would be granted admin tools, if not impossible. The reason for the time length should be self-evident. —Centrx→talk • 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's looking for a universal metric for experience, though. What >Radiant!< seems to be saying is, "Look. Anyone with less than 2 months time or 1500 edits is going to get avalanched anyway, so why not state that explicitly?" All this does is describe why we've been closing newbie RfAs early, so I don't think it's particularly controversial, though I might lower the edit threshold to 1000 (or less, per discussion below -- nae'blis 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)), even still - someone with a lot of experience on another language/wiktionary/commons might conceivably pass at 1200-1400 edits. -- nae'blis 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Nae'blis's interpetation. All this notice/guideline would do is inform people that if they have less than a certain amount of quantitative experience, it will not be possible to fairly judge their qualitative experience, so we will be unable to pass them. --tjstrf 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are suggesting some firm minimum below which RFAs are automatically rejected, I'm not opposed to that in principle (for some value of minimum), but if you are calling on people to generally stop thinking about a candidate's edit count distribution, I think that is pretty much a lost cause at this point. Dragons flight 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Nae'blis' suggestion. An explicit statement that nominations which don't meet the stated minimum suffrage will be removed as invalid seems to be a positive step. Removal for failure to meet the suffrage should be permissible for all editors. The threshold should be low to allow genuine borderline cases, but high enough to weed out joke/frivolous/malicious nominations. Beyond those minimum criteria, everyone can still apply their own personal metric if that's how they operate in assessing candidates. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Over the last year, we've had 18 successful nominations for nominees with less than 1500 edits. 4 of those have been nominees with less than 1,000 edits. The lowest was 767. To my knowledge (I could be wrong) none of these admins has been on the short end of an RfAr since being adminned. While I understand the desire behind this idea, it sets a barrier to adminship that would have prevented these 18 individuals from being admins when they wanted to be. Adminship is inclusive, not exclusive. By Jimbo's own desire, it should be liberally given to people who have earned the trust of the community.
I fear that if we do place such an instruction, and peg it at 1000 edits and 2 months, that two years from now it'll be 3000 and 6 months. Currently, 3000 and 6 months is when the editcountitis types stop having a negative influence on RfAs (per various studies I've done). Thus, until it reaches that level, there will be people advocating for this "standard" being higher. This entirely misses the point.
Edit counts are absolutely meaningless, always have been, and are especially meaningless in the context of a number of semi-automated tools now available to editors. Give me a few hours and I can rack up 2000 edits no problem (stub sorting, fair use vio's, etc). Give me a few hours and I can write an article from scratch and do it with one edit [2]. Which is more valuable to Wikipedia? Neither and both; it doesn't matter.
Putting a figure on who is acceptable here, while laudable for its intent to refocus attention on trust, isn't going to change the culture here. Even if we were very draconian and said "Any oppose votes for a candidate with >1500 edits that bases the oppose on too little experience will be ignored", regulars at RfA would come up with some vaguely equivalent stance that had to do with experience, and not focus on trust. Focusing on trust requires some heavy lifting (read: going through a heck of a lot of diffs to evaluate someone). Few people want to wade through a few thousand edits on someone to discover problems. That won't change by having even a low barrier to being able to be nommed. --Durin 20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Could you link to the 4 below 1000 that you mention? Dragons flight 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Sure. They are: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NicholasTurnbull, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Extreme Unction, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orioane. --Durin 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Hhmmm, well my first observation is that they are all 9+ months old. (Evolving standards?) My second reaction is to ask where were the edit count nazis when Orioane was going through? No one even brought up the issue, apparently. That, more than many things, strikes me as a sign of how arbitrary and capricious the system can be about this. Dragons flight 21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      - Yes, evolving standards. A year ago I would have said 500 rather than 1500. I do not intend to forbid anyone to use any kind of metric for voting - however, this is a matter of educating new people: if at the top of the page it says two months, people will be less inclined to use a metric of eight. Playing the Jimbo card doesn't cut it; if we were actually applying adminship liberally, we would give it to every serious user after a month or so, and remove it only after demonstrated abuse. >Radiant< 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        
        Sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Let's remember that anything an admin does can be undone. Also, if you would have said 500 a year ago, a year from now you might be saying 2500. Where does it stop? --Durin 00:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I applaud any effort to eliminate editcountitis and refocus on trust, but I'm baffled why your plan to eliminate it includes a hard editcount numerical standard. That's editcountitis in the extreme because someone with 1500 category adding edits gets in while a person with 1000 extremely well thought out large edits gets canned. Remove that, and anything else we can do to focus on the trust factor I would be for. I'd almost be for any comments referring to edit count get shot on sight so that people have to come up with something better, but I'll never get that one through. - Taxman ^Talk 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Can I have one of those guns with the magic silver bullet please? Oh, and a few cases of rounds too. :) --Durin 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Indeed! No permit needed, just lots of <s></s>'s. And here's where I wish I knew the color codes to get those to be in silver. :) - Taxman ^Talk 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    - ~~This works.~~ ~~As does this.~~ --tjstrf 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- Edit counting will never go away. People will always just run the data using Interiot/Essjay's tool. Often, just to make sure that it is not just some new user with <500 edits. Since the total edit count and namespace break down will also be out, it would be rational to try to stem misinterpretation of stats. My stats tool shows how many small and AWB edits a user made, which kills any AWB distortion. This is a good thing. Some things however can be misinterpreted and I've seen people oppose over such mistakes. For example, my tool used to count deletion tagging, but because deleted pages don't show in the contribs, then people get punished for flagging page for deletion that often actually get deleted (a good thing usually). I removed that count from it, and I hope that any other edit counter no longer includes that either. Additionally, certain stats are useful for getting a snapshot of the user's edits and where they focus. However it is only one factor, and is not enough to prove readiness/experience. Unless the counts are very very low, it is not usually enough to oppose over either. They are just a factor.Voice-of-All 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we apply the same standards as for board elections - currently 400 edits and 3 months. The only real purpose of edit counting as far as I can see is as a troll filter - to infer anything else from it would be unreasonable. If we can trust someone enough to vote in a board election, we can at least consider them on their merits and not their numbers. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new process

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)

RfAs per week

Some weeks ago, a graph I made back in April (Image:NumberofRfAsPerWeek.png) was referenced in a discussion here on WT:RFA. At the time, it was voiced that it might be useful to have that graph update. Here's the updated version:

--Durin 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The single trend line doesn't seem to fit. Just visually, it looks like an upward trend for the first 1/3, followed by a flat or slightly downward trend for the last 2/3rds. Isn't there a minimizing the square roots of deviations formula that can be applied for a non-straight trend line? NoSeptember 21:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's a variety of ways that you can do trend forecasts. I added this trendline the same as I added the one in the last graph for consistency. It's the same function as the last graph. Note that this trendline is considerably shallower than the last one. --Durin 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a moving average (3 or 5 week, I'd say)? That would get rid of the weekly variations and show a trend without having to decide what shape the trend is going to be first. --Tango 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I already tried it. It's unrevealing. The trend line's r^2 value is low and may be entirely useless because of that. --Durin 23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA success rate over time

In February of 2006, I created a chart (Image:RfASuccessRate705-206.png) showing RfA success rate over time in support of a discussion occurring on here on WT:RFA at the time. It being six months since then, I thought it might be interesting to revisit the data and see where we stand now. The chart below shows the RfA success rate over time from July 2005 through August 2006. Nominations for editors with less than 1000 edits at time of nomination have been removed from the data set.

Observation: The success rate over the last several months has plateaued at 45%. --Durin 17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that those red curves can reasonably be called a plateau, but I'm wondering what evidently localised effects cause the sharp transitions? Presumably some highly controversial candidate(s) come along one week, crank up the edit count averages and then don't get promoted... or something like that. One trend would seem to be a lower threshold for success in the last few months but again, with such sharp variations, it's hard to see reliable trends. Interesting, nevertheless, though. -Splash - tk 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The plateau at 45% is based on the average over the last two months. The curve has been dancing around that 45%, whereas the prior several months showed a decline. --Durin 18:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What jumps out at me is the dark blue line. In 2005, the average % support plateaus near 90%, then it declines in early 2006, and now it seems to have plateaued at 80% since April. So we used to have a support/oppose ratio of about 8 to 1, now it is only 4 to 1. NoSeptember 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This may have already been posted recently, but I'm curious what the decline in total nominations has been. Might success rates go down when there are fewer to look at? Marskell 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you add the promotions to the rejections from this chart, you may get an idea. Total nominations haven't declined it appears, but that is without excluding the <1000 candidates as Durin has done. NoSeptember 18:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Each data point on the red lines in the above chart is based on the prior 20 RfAs for that data point. So, each data point is looking at the same number of nominations. This helps stabilize the data, at the cost of having some RfAs having an effect on more than one data point. --Durin 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and interesting data as always, Durin. I suspect the declining percentage of support may also be due to several anomalies, such as a number of near-unanimous RfAs a few months ago, combined with some unusually low promotions more recently (Carnildo, etc.), though I think that it (the line) is an accurate indicator of the overall trend. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a look at the median instead of the mean would be interesting. NoSeptember 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Median of what value? The blue line? Want stdevs too? :) --Durin 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I was just thinking out loud, wondering if other figures would confirm what Flcelloguy was speculating about. NoSeptember 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Geogre/RFA-Derby

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)

"A mop and a bucket"

In going over the backlogs of failed and successful RfAs, I'm really starting to come to the following conclusion: FEAR.

I agree with thet trust issue, and so on. I agree that it "should" just be about receiving a mop and a bucket.

But instead it's about the perception that being an admin is equivalent to being a member of "management". (With all that goes with it: power, prestige, control, etc.)

However, from what I've read on actual explanation pages (policies/guidelines/essays/etc), that's not what being an admin is about (as noted above).

I've been through more than my share of management classes/conventions/what-have-you.

And one of the over-riding questions/discussions is about how do you as a manger get your employees to listen to you. Note the word "get". In a business situation, you need to manage your people effectively, and in the end, if you "need" to (if force of personality, whether positive or negative, doesn't work) there is always the implied threat from the "hire/fire priviledge". Or even the direct threat, (though rarely necessary).

So how do we deal with the perception that being an admin makes one a "manager"?

Hire/fire priviledge. In our case, that's the block/unblock ability (user right).

I once proposed a lessening of this ability (on a page that was at the end of it's historical life, apparently...). But the more I see the fear to trust someone who claims to want to help in some way with "the backlog", because of unsurety of how they will use the "other" abilities (typically implying blocking), the more I think that maybe the ability to block/unblock should be an additional right to be requested (to be given by bureaucrat level or higher), rather than just "part of the package deal".

I think that this would deal with nearly all the complaints/concerns on this page.

If for some reason someone believes that things such as intimidation, or block reversion warring doesn't go on, I'll reluctantly give them diffs, but at this point, I would rather not, if possible, for obvious reasons.

Implementation:
1.) Remove the ability to block/unblock from all admins not of at least bureaucrat level (checkusers should probably keep it too, for related reasons).

This means that all current admins retain "the mop". (No "review" would be necessary - Arbcom can effectively deal with removal of blocking priviledges, and the admin would still have "the mop" to continue to help with that ever-present "backlog").

This doesn't create a "middle" sysop between admin and bureaucrat, just a "right" that may be added, similar to checkuser or boardvote.

Gaining the ability could be implemented through an RfB page, or through bureaucrat/steward concensus, or both.

While I've seen a few suggestions that come close to this, I haven't actually seen this. Any comments/thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You've apparantly forgotten about vandals, the primary target of blocks and bans of all sorts. If you restricted the block ability to a tiny minority of a tiny minority, how would we keep up with the WP:AIV board? --tjstrf 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect and meaning no ill intentions, I believe that removing blocking power from administrators is an absolutely horrid idea. Administrators have to deal not only with disuptive editors where blocks may be problematic if handled incorrectly, but also dedicated vandals that require a quick block. If only bueraucrats had blocking power or gave blocking power to a select few, it would simply take too long to protect the encyclopedia in the case of vandalbot/AOL attacks and create an unnecessary division between administrators, sort of like creating a "senior" admin group. Blocking, along with protection and deletion are necessary tools that are needed by administrators every hour, maybe even every minute. If someone cannot be trusted with one part of the admin tools, they shouldn't ge them in the first place, and if they misuse them, arbcom shouldn't hesitate to act as they see fit. Naconkantari 02:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Naconkantari, but I believe the poster above is trying to make another point - RfA is indeed continuing to become ridiculous. On the other hand (and on a somewhat unrelated tangent) I don't like calling it just a "mop and a bucket", because the LAST thing we want to do is make admins look BAD or MEDIOCRE, because that ruins so much potential for role modeling and so on. We WANT users to learn from the actions of admins; we WANT new users to look up to experienced, community-approved users.

In other words: it's about balancing "object due to a mispelling in an edit summaru" ridiculousness with "Oh, here's the mop". :-) — Deckill e r 03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgotten? Not at all. I don't think that this would be a "tiny minority of a tiny minority". What I do think is that it provides an extra "check" (an extra "nudge", if you will) on admins, and would provide a way to see us gain many more admins, since I think the process would be less bogged down. I am only guessing, but I would guess that most of the blocking is done by less than 100 admins out of the 1000. I'm not suggesting that it need only be a "select few". But I do think that we don't need 1000 blocking admins, but we could definitely use all 1000 admins working on the other areas of wikipedia. This would "jump start" that process.

I see many benefits, with no liabilities. - jc37 03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

One must remember that there are only 24 bureaucrats and 21 stewards, amounting to 45 editors, who cannot possibly stem the horde of vandals that Wikipedia faces everyday, let alone have time to block established users when warranted by ArbCom, Jimbo Wales, etc. --physicq210 03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking is one of the powers given to Admins which I would use least, if ever. Admins should be aiming to resolve disputes - and using force is rarely a good way to do this. Blocking someone so they can cool down is a bit of an oxymoron. A skilled Admin can achieve a better result by communication. And I've reverted a few hundred vandalisms, and with appropriate communication, most of these have not recurred. Stephen B Streater 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you (I'm not an admin myself) that admins should use blocking as a last resort, removing the privilege to block will only turn Wikipedia into a graffiti board; see WP:AIV if you want an example of the vandalism troubles this place faces everyday. --physicq210 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The question in my mind is whether blocks just treat the symptom, not the cause. A blocked vandal will just return another day. A reformed vandal can join the forces of Good. Stephen B Streater 03:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"...there are only 24 bureaucrats and 21 stewards, amounting to 45 editors, who cannot possibly stem the horde of vandals that Wikipedia faces everyday..." - I think you totally misunderstood the suggestion. I'm not suggesting limiting the ability to block to those Bct and above. I'm suggesting that the ability to block be separate from the "package deal" of being an admin, and Bct and above can grant it (by what process it is granted should be discussed, whether by a RfBlock page, or by concensus of Bcts, or whatever). I'm suggesting that all current admins lose the ability, and basically we "start over", and have the 45 you mentioned assign the ability to whomever the community/they feel is worthy of those tools. And agreeing wholeheartedly with both SBS's comments : ) - jc37 03:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What would happen in the time period when only 45 editors have access to blocking? I'd imagine that the vandalism would be most severe. Just because sysops don't use blocking every day doesn't mean that they don't need it. Also, as I said above, this would create an unnecessary class of "senior" admins, much like the giving rollback to regular editors proposal that failed earlier this year. Naconkantari 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Naconkantari. Not only does this proposal add an entirely new layer of unneeded bureaucracy, but it is a solution in search of a problem. While there were a few questionable blocks and a few fears of intimidation (I'm not an admin; do I suffer such fear?), to impose a broad-ranging solution on a minute problem is not the way to go. I agree, however, that the RfA process has become a tad too intense. --physicq210 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"What would happen in the time period when only 45 editors have access to blocking?" - I presume that that wouldn't last for long : )
Another bonus coming from this idea would be that Bcts could give temporary blocking powers as they see fit (to handle certain situations, or for a set length of time), so if there was a sudden outbreak of vandals, The Bcts act, giving out temporary blocking ability as needed for the crisis, which go away after the crisis is resolved. This makes it intuitive, and useful. And again, I don't think we need 1000 admins who block, but I think we could definitely use more than 1000 admins with the "rest of the package".

And as an aside, obviously anyone with checkuser or oversight would have the ability to block/unblock, since it's directly related. (I'm not certain why those with oversight aren't automatically checkusers, btw). - jc37 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The bureaucrats simply cannot act fast enough if there is a serious threat to the encyclopedia. It takes at least 5 minutes on IRC to get the attention of a steward and be sysopped on a wiki to stop vandalism, even more if there are none online that have access to the ja.wiki cluster. Naconkantari 04:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still do not see the rationale behind your proposal. May you please elaborate? Thanks. --physicq210 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Be happy to, but it may take me a moment : )

While you're waiting, check out this semi-related comment. - jc37 04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(responding to the query first)
As I mentioned above, a big part of the issue with approving admins is "trust". As it currently stands, Admins have several abilities (also known as rights or powers).

Making the outcome clearer.

While we all saw this isn't a vote, its historically been treated as one. I propose that we elminate, or at least restrict "no-consensus" closes, and require a clear pass or fail in all but truely deadlocked cases.

The way this would work is that the RFA would remain open at least to its full term, and after that would be closed only when thresholds for passing or failing have been reached. No-consensus closes would be possible after either a week without further comment, or after 30 days of comment without reaching the thresholds for passing or failing.

Thoughts? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would give people a chance to come back and review the discussion, which many people don't seem to do at the moment. A consensus can often take longer to emerge because many candidates are not known to the people who take part. Stephen B Streater 07:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please. — Werdna talk criticism 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A longer relist period? This seems to be a simple improvement that would help and which it might be possible to get the community to support. One caveat is that if it does drift to a threshold, the 'crats shouldn't close it immediately but wait maybe a day to see if it drifts back to no consensus. --ais523 09:51, 22 September 2006 (U T C)

And of course we'd have endless debate about what thresholds constitute "consensus". Nice idea, but it doesn't address the core issue that we all dance around as to what consensus means in this context. --Durin 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- User:Geogre/RFA-Derby has some (possibly radical) ideas on the topic. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I'm assuming that you would use >80% = consensus, but what would be fail? <70% ? Themindset 19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And there begins the endless debate on what constitutes consensus, as predicted :) --Durin 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. As long as the margin is wide enough that we give a definitive answer, rather than "no consensus". 80% might be a little high. I'd be inclined to say 75% or even 70%. I've rarely if ever seen anything but a fail with under 60% though. I'm still watching some of the alternatives also though - doing away with voting altogether would be preferable. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we go forward with this for now with the guidance to 'crats that either overwhelming support or widespread opposition are required to close an RFA (in otherwords the same rough thresholds they use now), and refine this as we go? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No. --Durin 12:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then what's wrong with this? What harm does it cause? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(further response to Durin). I really don't see major changes happening to RFA, so the only real way to fix it is to make small changes and see how they work. I consider this to be little more than a proceedural change. I don't think it fixes the entire process, although it would definantely improve the workings of that process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Two more RfA proposals

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)

More food for thought

Since our current RFA system is a hybrid, I'm going to list both extremes as a thought experiment. Comments welcome. Please don't assume that either extreme is my actual opinion; this is just brainstorming. Also, please don't be offended if the language seems harsh, they're called extremes for a reason, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, bureaucrat or otherwise. Radiant! 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, though I prefer to describe what it is, rather than what we think it should be. I used to think that RFA was a vote but on observing how recent RFAs were handled I decided that it isn't, even if it once was.

On the argument that RFA must be a vote, I don't think it's reasonable. For instance we would not want to force a bureaucrat to consider a ridiculous reason, even if it was genuinely held. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA must be a vote

The basic definition of an admin is someone who can be trusted to not abuse the tools, and RFA serves to gauge the trust our community places in the candidate. Trust is, by definition, a subjective issue, and very personal. While most people can explain quite reasonably why they do or do not trust someone, other people can understand the reasoning fully and yet disagree equally reasonably. No editor can rightfully claim that another editor is wrong on this or that his trust (or lack thereof) is invalid.

As such, it is impossible for any third party, such as a bureaucrat, to accurately interpret community consensus based on arguments - doing so will inevitably lead to the bureaucrat counting or discounting reasons based on his personal opinion, which, because of human nature, isn't any better or worse than anyone else's opinion. Thus, any RFA that is interpreted by a bureaucrat in any such subjective way, is by definition biased.

The only fair way to judge an RFA is to make it an actual vote, discounting sockpuppets, of course, but nobody else even if their reasoning seems spurious. We should create a strict limit of two-thirds or three-quarters of the participants, and use that as an absolute divider between who passes and who fails. The role of a bureaucrat is a strictly formal one (which gives them more time for renaming users, checking bots, and writing articles). Incidentally, this system is in use in most other-language Wikipedias that have a formal adminship system, and it works fine there. Most dissent on RFA is because of its vagueness; a strict borderline may be somewhat arbitrary, but at least it is open, egalitarian, and fair. Nothing else is.

>Radiant< 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA must not be a vote

The basic definition of an admin is someone who can be trusted not to abuse the tools, and RFA serves to gauge the trust our community places in the candidate. Trust is, by definition, a subjective issue - however, there are certain reasons that are more valid than other reasons. A candidate who was a hostile edit warrior in the past or escalated a dispute by handling it wrongly is likely unsuited for adminship; a candidate who has a limited field of interest perceived as trivial or ludicrous, or who is in disagreement about an issue important in the real world but unrelated to adminship, would likely be a good candidate.

Many Wikipedians are quite capable of judging other people rationally, and estimating their efficacy in adminship based on past actions. However, several editors are less rational, and can be seen to hold a grudge against a candidate, or to oppose for reasons of principle, or to support because of reasons that may be laudable but have no bearing on adminship whatsoever.

The only fair way to judge an RFA is to consider the given arguments (both support and oppose) on their merit, and discount all that have no bearing on adminship. This is a difficult task, but that's what we elect bureaucrats for. RFA should not resemble anything like a vote; instead, a few people should make brief, sourced arguments on why the candidate may or may not be suitable. People who have nothing to say but "me too" or "support per that user" should stay away, they're not contributing to the process. Also, comments should not be signed - it's the argument that count, not the person who makes it.

After some flexible amount of time, several bureaucrats should discuss with one another whether there are, in their best judgment, any compelling reasons not to promote the candidate - and if not, perform the promotion. No single bureaucrat should make this decision, if only for the sake of perceived fairness. To ensure accountability to the community, bureaucrats should serve terms of up to one year. Depending on bureaucrat judgment may be somewhat subjective, but at least it ensures that people are promoted or demoted for a good reason, which is only fair. Nothing else is.

>Radiant< 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This last paragraph about bureaucrats consulting with one another is not directly related to the "is a / is not a vote" dichotomy. I would urge you to remove/strike it out in order to avoid confusing the issue. The last paragraph converts the "not a vote" decision into a "a vote by bureaucrats" decision. Whether one bureaucrat decides or a group of bureaucrats decides is a second-order question. The primary question that you seem to be asking is: "Is RFA a vote among all interested Wikipedians?"

--Richard 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

This first of the standard questions given to every user has been bugging me for a while. The fact it says "if any" is totally pointless, because the whole idea of being an administrator is that sysop chores are helped with. I have tried to edit the template but found it to be protected, so I'm commenting on here. Does anyone agree with me :-) --Alex | talk / review me | 15:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay as it is, as it helps people see if the person nominated intends on using the admin tools should they get them. No point in being an administrator if you're never going to help out, is there? jd || talk || 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I think it should go. To leave it there might mislead candidates into thinking that they don't have to do anything at all if they have the tools. jd || talk || 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They don't have to do anything at all if they have the tools. Like everything else on Wikipedia, exercising admin powers is entirely voluntary. --Rory096 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove the "if any". You could even word it more strongly and say "What sysop chores will you commit to doing?" --Richard 16:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. --Alex | talk / review me | 16:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Richard. It is necessary to perform sysop chores, but since people differ in their area of contribution, the question should stay. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The "if any" should go though, as it isn't an "if any" option - if you become an admin, you should become one for a reason. A user may write "I anticipate doing no chores, but would just like to be one" under this current question. I agree with Richard's point about it being worded more strongly. --Alex | talk / review me | 16:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the "if any" should stay. If someone says they aren't planning on doing much in response to that, it serves as grounds for opposition. It also shows the user that he or she is expected to perform admin. duties if promoted, and it shows the "voters" information that is required to form an opinion. Michael 16:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's my point. I've seen so many users who request adminship with such a bad idea about what administrators do. By removing "if any" it shows that chores are not an option, and it'll also require the user to do some research about it. Opposition should be made on grounds of another reason, not the fact the question possibly confused them. --Alex | talk / review me | 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It could work either way. With "if any", it gives grounds to oppose. If we delete it, it would make people more hesitant to answer and nominate themselves or respond to a nomination. Either way can act as a deterrant. Deleting it would possibly just mean fewer RfAs actually reaching the nomination page. If we keep it, it is possible for us to see how the user responds and allows us to evaluate whether or not they would use the tools given the possible exception. Michael 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There are far too many nominations that fail though. IMHO only the ones which are likely to succeed, or get lots of support should ever make it to the main page. --Alex | talk / review me | 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting two words will not change the fact that many admins will do less than others. Most nominees will know that. So just clean delete these words - don't overanalyze. Rama's arrow 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rama's arrow. However, I think it's restrictive to force potential admins to "commit" as per Richard.--Lkjhgfdsa 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should necessarily be commited to what they write, but I'm just saying "if any" is a redundant phrase because of course there will be chores anticipated to help with. --Alex | talk / review me | 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the question would be akin to the "Found the image somewhere" booby trap in image upload page. The question is: Do we need booby traps in RfA? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion about "committing to specific chores" was just to illustrate that we would like admins to commit to helping rather than just having the buttons "for the heck of it". Since some have objected to the specific word "commit", we could change "do you anticipate helping with?" to "will you help with?". I'm not hung up on this bit though. It would be sufficient to just strike the "if any". --Richard 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A grammatical point that has been bugging me for a while, and illustrated in the preceeding comment - the wording "would you anticipate helping with" should be "do you anticipate...". On the main point, I personally prefer the "if any" to remain for the reasons stated above. Despite the booby trap aspect, not every admin applicant will apply in order to do 'chores'. It may be expected of an admin, but they may want admin priviledges just so they can go about their normal business without the hindrance of queueing to get simple admin tasks completed. I think it is appropriate to ask if that is the case. Jim182 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That clashes with the purpose of adminship doesn't it? Its not for personal convenience. Rama's arrow 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it's to help the project. --Alex | talk / review me | 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone would disagree, but it is appropriate to ask without assuming. Anyway it was just a minor thought addition - my main point was on the grammar. Jim182 18:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Adminship was intended to not be a restrictive class. By insisting that trusted editors must agree to substantial admin work you raise the bar on what is and is not an acceptable admin. Perfectly acceptable admins can be trusted to use the buttons wisely, yet very rarely actually use them. There isn't any reason why such people should not be admins. I nominated exactly such a person back in October of 2005 (see his RfA). Since he was given the admin abilities, he's used them eight times. That doesn't make him any less an acceptable admin. The idea that admin candidates must commit to doing lots of admin tasks overlooks what adminship, at its core, is about. It's about trusted users being able to efficiently conduct the business of writing the encyclopedia. --Durin 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that removing two words won't change anything, its not a question of demanding that candidates do "substantial work." But "if any" implies that one is free not to do any, which is unacceptable. I'm pretty sure we are over-analyzing an otherwise mundane point. Rama's arrow 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound too objectivist, but I would not like to see candidates who don't want to perform admin-tasks stand for RfA. Its not about their capabilities as an admin or admin-eliteness, but I just feel it is a waste of community time if nearly 50~100 people research a candidate's background, ratified his capabilities and granted him sysop status only to find that he doesn't deliver. I am also a bit sad to see that many editors still see RfA as a "show of strength", getting praises from the community, and after becoming succesful, never (or rarely) touch the buttons. I have seen many such editors in the past, and am sure all of you would have. This is the reason I keep telling people that they should only go for RfA only when they need the tools. Guess I am a strong follower of Essjay's philosophy that: "If your edit doesn't make Wikipedia a better place, its better to not perform that edit". Consequently, I feel that people with no interest in sysop chores should think twice before submitting their RfA. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So is there a concensus here, or should we do a straw poll? --Alex | talk / review me | 10:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --Alex | talk / review me | 11:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the minor grammatical change (would -> do), I am content with the current wording. It allows candidates to express a preference for not doing 'admin chores', which is their right, and perhaps also their downfall. I concur with the points made by Durin above. Jim182 11:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pop quizzes"

There appears to be a recent trend toward users' putting "pop quiz" questions to candidates and then !voting or commenting based on the replies. I'd welcome discussion on whether this is a desirable development. Newyorkbrad 19:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What's an example of a pop quiz question? Picaroon9288 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions 7-9 on NishKid64's pending RfA are examples. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no immediately apparent problem with most of them. Not specifically relating to Nishkid's rfa, but in general, these sorts of questions can help users verify that the candidate is knowledgeable enough to perform duty X that they listed in q1 by asking them to comment on a specific example of X, or making sure they generally understand task/area X. However, I have seen at least two such "out-of-nowhere" questions, which, when not answered perfectly, led to a somewhat questionable oppose. Picaroon9288 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they are a good idea if a user wants to know more about the candidate, or a particular incident. --Alex | talk / review me | 19:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really a recent trend, it happened a few months back. I disagree with 15 standard questions that people copy and paste onto every RfA, as was the case a while ago, but specific questions directed to a specific candidate should be encouraged. --Rory096 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Anybody should be free to ask questions - I recommend using the RfA's talkpage for this purpose. Rama's arrow 23:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think rely on an RfA as a process of interview is a very good way to solve its present issues. Rama's arrow 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I find questions that havne't been asked before to be a good test of whether the candidate can think on their feet. The stock questions may have been answered weeks in advance, with reference to other answers (I know I thought about how and why others answered the stock questions when I answered them). So I support these, within reason... ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as the ones I've added, I've caught 3 admins doing speedy deletes w/o realizing that the pages were vandalized into looking like attack pages. If they hadn't been on my watchlists, those pages would have disappeared into the void forever - not on anyone's contribution lists or anything. You can't even see what other pages an anon has vandalized similarly since they don't appear on the anon's contributions - only the negligent admins' deletion logs. To me, the possibility of losing more viable articles forever to lazy future admins is enough reason to oppose. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request

Can an admin delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ReyBrujo, please? Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Yank sox 05:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives