Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requests for adminship sections
Main page edit | watch Active nominations for adminship and bureaucratship	Talk page post | watch | archives Bureaucrat noticeboard Discussions related to RfA	Past nominations Successful RfAs Unsuccessful RfAs Successful RfBs Unsuccessful RfBs Nomination data User rights log	Nominate To nominate an editor	Related reading Administrators Bureaucrats Guide to RfA Arguments to avoid Admin reading list Admin how-to guide
Current admin count: 1,555 (list all)

Username S O N S% Ending Duplicates? Report Tinkleheimer 11 5 0 69% 16 June 04:10 No Details Epbr123 130 2 1 98% 11 June 17:21 No Details Tanthalas39 71 6 2 92% 10 June 18:30 No Details Last updated 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) by Tangobot RFB Username S O N S% Ending Duplicates? Report Useight 18 12 2 60 13 June 21:42 No report AGK 2 44 20 7 69 11 June 22:52 No report Note: Not bot updated. Last updated 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut: WT:RFA

Archives

For discussions from June 2003 till just before what's in this page, see /Archives. RFA discussions before June 2003 took place on a mailing list. RFA-related discussions may also be found at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Contents 1 Protection level 2 A mandatory question 3 Unbundle The Tools 3.1 protected pages 4 irc, or other forms of off-wiki communication 5 All the candidates listing after The Big One... 5.1 336 Supports, 3 Opposes 5.1.1 The Real Test 6 RfA Review - Baselining the Process 7 New global userright 8 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apollo1986 needs closing 9 H20's Rfa 10 BAG request: Bjweeks (BJ) 11 An alternative RfA approach 12 Linkifying user count "stats"? 13 (another) RFA Proposal 14 Tables 15 The bold RfA approach 16 edit count 17 a reiteration of an RfA Mechanism idea 18 Backlog at WP:ER

[edit] Protection level

I think the protection level for WP:RFA should be indef semi-protection. It would save us from the sock RFA noms and save newbies who don't know better from adding an RFA when they have 5 edits and getting badly bitten on opposes. And it wouldn't interfere with the normal functioning of the page or prevent IPs from editing individual RFAs already transcluded. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad idea at all. I don't see any real drawbacks in doing so. The individual RFAs themselves would still be business as usual, and there is no legitimate reason a new editor would need to edit the main RFA page. This was already proposed maybe two months ago I think. What became of that discussion? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Faded into oblivion or decided against most likely, I fail to recall which. I seem to remember an administrator actually protecting the page and it being immediately undone by another with some comments here at WT:RFA. Regardless, since this is once again a topic, I have absolutely no problems with the above proposal. RFA would be completely unaffected. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That particular discussion is here Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that in May, there were at least 4 RFAs by users with less than 10 edits at time of transclude. All were SNOW fails, so this would've prevented 4 newbie bitings. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I opposed it then, but have seen the errors of my ways... I think this is a good idea now.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think editing should be sprotected, and moving full protected. I can't see a need for non-autoconfirmed users to edit it, or for anyone to move the page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DHMO on this one, I think I too, may have been in error at the time (*GASP!*) SQL^{Query me!} 08:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. It would also prevent vandalism to the main RfA page such as this or this. Oh, and indef move protection would also be sensible. I see no reason for RfA being moved anytime soon. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:42, May 31, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. The only legitimate reason as to why a very new user is going to edit this page is to add an RfA nom, and if they don't have 10 edits and 4 days experience there is no way they're going to pass. And it doesn't prevent newbies commenting on RfAs. Hut 8.5 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What if they were trying to nominate someone else? Obviously they aren't supposed to be the one transcluding the RFA onto the main page if they aren't the candidate, but a brand new user wouldn't know that. However, that's just as well as that preventative measure would make sure that the actual candidate transcluded the RFA. Now I'm starting to ramble, sorry, I just woke up a few minutes ago, but I also support semi-protecting the page. Useight (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I supported this during the last discussion, I would still support it now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support edit semi prot, move full prot. In fact, I may be bold here and do it. Looks like a solid consensus so far. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do be so bold. I can't think of a true problem that this would create, while as Mbisanz has noted, it would certainly prevent some people from being bitten. Antelan^talk 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let the record show I was so bold just now upon popular request. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A good move as far as I'm concerned. Acalamari 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work. The previous set up reminded me of putting your hand in the cookie jar only to find a bear trap.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with this action, despite the obvious drawbacks of revoking the ability of anonymous accounts to edit the encyclopedia 'anybody can edit'. Whilst I have seen a few instances of helpful contributions from anonymous and new editors, the conclusions of a simple cost-benefit analysis are flagrantly obvious: preventing new editors from adding RfAs that are clearly going to be NOTNOWed will help guide them away from the pain associated with having a request slammed shut within an hour or two. Regrettable but good move all round. Anthøny 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose indefinitely semi-protecting this page from editing, but as I'm clearly in the minority here, I'll spend my time debating other things. ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this as well, as we recently discussed this same matter too. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As the one who proposed it last time, I can only say "congratulations" to Rlevse for getting semi-protection to actually stick! Full support for indefinite semi-protection. Happy‑melon 10:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is quite obviously general consensus for semiprotection to be applied. If no degree of substantial opposition arises over the next 24 or so hours, I think we can safely wrap up this discussion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Again? Per MZMcBride, I'm against this, but recognize I'm probably in the minority, so I won't comment further. I do, however, want to say I'm pretty disappointed that the much less clearcut discussion about this, less than about a month ago, was completely ignored discounted, and "consensus" was declared after a little over 16 hours. This looks like a "facts on the ground" game (or a game of wheel-war chicken); surely everyone here knows this has gone back and forth alot in the past? I'll live with semi-protection, based on a "pick your battles" philosophy, but this was done in poor form, IMHO, and leaves a sour taste. --barneca (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't protect pages just because they shouldn't be edited. It's the simple things, you know? ➪HiDrNick! 14:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys do realise that this makes the edit section links disappear and therefore means that most, if not all IPs won't know how to comment on/at an RfA? Way to go. 86.147.110.112 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You just click the link in the section name.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh, IPs aren't supposed to vote at RFAs anyway... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'd love to know whose registered account that IP belongs to, sadly a CU probably won't go to the ol' fishing hole for me. IPs can comment at RFA, but I really can't remember the last time a non-sock IP made a legitimate comment. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:RFA should be at least semi-protected. I personally think that only established users could vote one way or the other on an RFA. People who have been here for awhile and have an idea about how things are. -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 06:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that protecting RfA wouldn't preclude voting from unconfirmed users and IPs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not getting how this once again devolved into IPs commenting on individual RfAs. I don't see how protecting the main RfA page affects that at all. I fully support semi-protecting WP:RFA. Enigma ^message 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection doesn't entirely preclude logged-out users from commenting on RfAs, but it does make it more difficult. Now that the page has been semi-protected, there are no links next to the section names on WP:RFA unless you are logged in. This was a bad idea indeed. ➪HiDrNick! 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A mandatory question

Given the current environment and culture on Wikipedia, I think a mandatory question of all RfA candidates should be:

• Are you aware that you will be be the target of harassment and death threats because of your position as an administrator? How do you intend to cope with this when it happens?

--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... no. Just no. Receiving "death threats" is not a given and this would just increase the levels of hysterical paranoia visible on the wiki in recent months. naerii - talk 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus it has nothing to do with being an administrator. Fill, was this a serious suggestion that you really think needs to be discussed here? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never really noticed Filll until he posted his AGF Challenge earlier this week. Then he really impressed me with his responses... while I don't agree with the AGF Challenge as part of the RfA process, he had rational well thought out reasons. The last couple of days, he has become---shall we say more pointy/belligerent? I'd say that is what this question is---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is of course pointy. Not that belligerent, but if you threaten someone repeatedly, he might respond. How about that?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since my very favorable first impression, it has gone down hill quite rapidly because you are being pointy at several places, just to be pointy. I recognize this may not be your finest hour, but I really wish you would think about your pointiness more.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to know that your first impression of me was favorable. However, that is not the impression you gave me of your impression of me, for sure. More like complete loathing and disgust. Something similar to the impression LaraLove implied she had of me, but maybe not quite as bad as LaraLove doubtlessly feels.

However, you should know where I got all those AGF problems from; from real experiences. You think I obtained all those experiences painlessly? You don't think there is a long trail of people that hate me frantically and would love to have me suffer a long slow painful death for things like suggesting the New York Times is a reliable source? If you do not think that, then you do not know much about Wikipedia I am afraid. And that is the whole point of the AGF Challenge; to reveal a bit about its darker corners to those who do not know. --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, not that I'm awfully fond of you or anything, but I do think you are going a little off the deep end here. If there are specific issues, please let ArbCom know privately, and contact the Foundation for IP data to be passed on to law enforcement. If you are seriously threatened in some way, I would point out that its only a website and that you should not take any chances and withdraw from the project, or, as I have done in the past in response to similar problems, commence editing under a new username and with substantially changed focus.

If, however, this is merely a statement of possibility, I suggest that it is unhelpful, as well as not respectful of those who have actually faced such problems, not a large group of people. I note seveal others on this page, and on the others where you have made similar statements, have indicated as much. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly RR, you have exhausted your welcome with me, and I do not appreciate your harassment and what appears to have every characteristic of stalking, as well as your irrational rants and nonsense. Please bother someone else for a change. Maybe I will have a discussion with you when you can demonstrate to me that you have something productive to contribute.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• shrug* I think you need to read up on what stalking actually is. And I bother lots of people, not just you. :)

If any of my statement above reads as irrational rants and nonsense....

I think you're coming down with a case of wikistress. That last post was really OTT rude. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's a stretch of the imagination to assert that administrators will be the subject of either off or on wiki death threats. And if it does happen, you contact the authorities or the foundation as all threats are to be taken seriously. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that every administrator got a death threat at some stage... ridiculous question, sorry. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It suggests to me that Filll has received death threats. And Pedro received threats earlier in the week. Having heard from other admins who have received threats, it's certainly a concern candidates should be aware of, though I'm not sure a question is necessary. All admin candidates should be aware of the potential for threats, stalking, outing, and being the target of ED biographies. Lara❤Love 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lara is probably correct with her surmising. However. Fill, were you proposing this question so that candidates will be aware of what they're getting into, or another question on which to judge the candidate? I ask only because if it's the latter case, it has no bearing on one's ability to handle administrative duties on Wikipedia. If it's the former, there are other ways to go about it. Disclaimers for one. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that no administrator gets threats, i'm aware of those that affected Pedro earlier this week. However, mandatory questions should affect all candidates and I don't think threats come under that category. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, plenty of non-admins are subjected to threats and to offsite harassment. Conversely, plenty of admins are able to maintain a low profile and are not really targeted at all. So it's misleading to suggest that this sort of treatment is a by-product of adminship itself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Oh, I didn't even consider this was being pointy. How naive of me. I was thinking of it more as a "Hey, this is possible, will you be able to deal with such a situation and are you willing to take that risk?" Hopefully my original take is the correct one, otherwise this is ridiculous. Lara❤Love 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well a disclaimer is a good idea too. But asking the question makes sure that if and when something bad happens, then we have some record of them been made aware of it and them acknowledging it. For legal purposes. This is a cesspit and getting worse. And our current attitudes and culture just encourage it. So it is better to be prepared since we seem bound and determined to continue down this path.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are higher profile than others. And say no more often. And so I think they are targeted more often. Of course I have no statistics on that, but it is a reasonable supposition to start with.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems quite morbid to me that we'd be preparing for the legal ramifications of someone being mangled or murdered over Wikipedia. I think a disclaimer somewhere highlighting the various possibilities would be appropriate. And not as some sort of legal fallback for the Foundation, but for the safety and awareness of candidates. While threats are not limited to admins, outing is. And two of the three outers I know of have stated they want to out all admins. So that is something that admins candidates should be aware of, if only to give them a heads up to keep their private information private. Lara❤Love 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of our current careless climate and atmosphere, we are going to have a killing or two with almost complete certainty. Many of our policies encourage it. So let's just accept that and get ready. We have no one but ourselves to blame since we condone and encourage it. But dont worry about that, lets just prepare for the inevitable since we seem not to care about it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Okay, so this is clearly pointy now. Uhm, there's probably a more appropriate venue (or a few) for this. What policies are in need of updating to no longer "condone and encourage" the murdering of our admins? Lara❤Love 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that our policies are designed to bolster harmony rather than sinister discord. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. There is plenty I could say but maybe this is not the right place for it. --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't a mandatory "death threat" question is a good idea. Perhaps the disclaimer, though, wouldn't be bad. Some admins are higher profile than others and will take more flak (such as those who patrol [[CAT:CSD] and WP:AIV), than others. Personally, I've never received a death threat (but my userpage has been vandalized 31 times), and I think I'm a somewhat well-known admin, or at least one that is quite integrated into the community. Useight (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As i'm not an admin, I can't really state facts on the matter. I'd love to hear the opinions of several admins on the matter and see what consensus says about such a question? I'd be much happier with a disclaimer though, just for the record. I don't think we'd be doing any favours by scaring off potential candidates by having to answer such a question. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 19:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is probably prudent to avoid legal trouble to do so. Probably we should contact Mike Godwin with help on how to draft a suitable question and/or disclaimer to protect the foundation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia epitomizes the phrase "public domain". I mean, IP addresses are visible for all to see, something that is generally kept hidden from other visitors to a site. What does this mean? All users who make the decision to contribute to Wikipedia are taking a potential risk, which is likely intuitive anyway. The disclaimer might work, as I suggested before, but honestly, I don't generally feel that the Wikipedia community is naive enough to believe their work won't be scrutinized. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is really needed or useful, and it is not worded in a factual way. The vast majority of our administrators are not receiving death threats. If we must have a disclaimer along these lines, it should appear on the "create an account" page, not RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? I know several that get them. Or other assorted threats. I do not think threats are so uncommon for admins. Not in my experience. Admins are loathed. Very few admins that used their tools would ever be reappointed. Ever.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My experience is much the opposite, I have little sense that admins are loathed and I expect that the vast majority of existing admins would be reconfirmed under RfA. Obviously it is unfortunate that editors would receive threats or intimidation of any kind but this query gives the impression that this happens to the majority of admins. You are individually welcome to mention this problem to prospective candidates but I don't see that we need to make this a mandatory question.

With all due respect, then you know a very different version of Wikipedia than I do. And from what is documented at User:Filll/WP Challenge.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this really relevant to RfA, or did you just want to get it off your chest? naerii - talk 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. RfA candidates should know what they are letting themselves in for. And we should have some record that they acknowledge that fact, to protect Wikipedia and the Foundation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been an admin on 6 wikis over a span of nearly two years. I have not (touch wood) ever received a death, or otherwise threat in any shape or form. Al Tally ^talk 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty to say to that but I think I will hold off. I will just say, "Oh is that so?"--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@Filll — So surely a disclaimer is more adequate. As for the record of acknowledgment, how about expanding the acceptance line to include the reading of such a disclaimer? Although, this is pretty similar to the terms of service that comes with pieces of software; which, let's face it, no one reads. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs?

Not a bad idea, really.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone who is disgusted with the fact that Wikipedia is run in such a way that its admins receive death threats, it seems strange that you'd be trying to make changes to protect the very Foundation that couldn't give a shit about what happens to you. Lara❤Love 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do hold out hope that things can be improved. Or would you prefer to have things continue on their current course, or even contribute to making things worse? I know what my choice is.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the RFA nom is the place to bring this up. There are many "low-brow"/wikignomish administrators who have not had to deal with that kind of nonsense. I doubt we should consider all new administrators as potential haterrazzi targets. It depends what categories of admin work you get involved with. I pretty much agree with what naerii said way up top...it would cause needless paranoia. We must remember that we aren't training grizzled Marines or paralegals here!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is based on my own experience as an admin who is neither particularly low nor high profile (sort of in the middle, I guess), I have never received any death threats. Or any other sort of threats. I suspect this is why I don't feel such a question is necessary. But I recognise admins (or, indeed, any editor) who have received threats simply for volunteering their time on Wikipedia are best placed to determine whether such a question is relevant - after all, they have been through this. Has any work ever been done to see just what proportion of admins have received threats? Neıl 龱 11:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never been threatened with death either (after ~1500 blocks, iirc). Don't think it's appropriate for RFA, though maybe WP:ADMIN? · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unbundle The Tools

This has probably been addressed in the past. Before I was even a twinkle in Wikipedia’s eye. (No pun intended concerning Twinkle. However, a question I need to ask, for my own curiosity, have we ever considered unbundling the tools? And if so, why haven’t we? There are many candidates for Adminisreative positions that make excellent cases for specific needs for specific tools. The ability to protect or unprotect is a great example in cases of Template work. However, with a particular user, there may be legitimate concerns with regards that along with that specific button, they also get the ability to Block and Delete. Why can’t we just give that user that particular tool. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we, though? Surely if you cannot trust a user not to use the tools they don't need, they shouldn't be given any at all? Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several admins I could trust to protect a page but I could not trust to block anyone. I can think of several admins I could trust to block users but I could not trust to close an XfD. Some admins I could trust to protect pages, but I could not trust them to view deleted material. I really see no reason to give one user all 26 tools at once. Shoessss may be interested in looking over the recent Adminship poll for talk about unbundling the tools. --Pixelface (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very sensible idea, but let me be the first to draw your attention to perennial proposals. Expecting administrators to voluntary relinquish some of their powers to lesser beings sounds a bit like asking a turkey to vote for Thansgiving anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My first response is why wouldn’t we? Every individual has special talents! An individual who is exceptional talented in code, may have some maturity issues. Do we discourage that particular individual, who could be a great benefit to Wikipedia in working on Templates or other matters concerning code, by forcing them to go through the Rfa process to gain the tool to protect or unprotect? In turn, we force them to go trough with the Rfa, where they are shot down because they do not have “..enough main space edits – or that they are not a content builder” causing their Rfa to fail. Thereby, discouraging the candidate who moves on to greener pastures. To me this is not only a net loss to Wikipedia in that we lost this talent. But we now have one more opponent criticizing Wikipedia. Again, just a question. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address my issue particularly well there, i'm afriad. I'm aware there are several people who could benefit from using certain tools more than others but why do we need to split them up? Why can't they just have them all anyway? If you can't trust them with all of them, I believe you can't trust them with any of them. In the meantime, they still have the ability to ask an administrator to do the task for them. Perhaps that is just my opinion. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think un-bundleing the tools for each persons best area is sort of like the Army letting a guy with no legs join up because he's good with his hands.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose. There are plenty of admin powers that no-one in their right mind would bother going through a "Request for..." process for, but nonetheless are a valuable tool (WP:Requests for ability to hide bulk edits from RecentChanges, anyone?); plus, plenty of admins rarely use one or the other of the powers (I performed a grand total of four blocks between January and April this year), but there's no reason to deny the ability to do so. Of the two "big" powers, I find it impossible to picture the editor I'd trust with a delete but not a block button, or to delete but not to undelete articles. The only current admin power I'd be happy to see split off would be a separate WP:Requests for ability to edit through autoblocks process. — iridescent 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for the ability to see deleted pages because I'm a nosey person would be a little tough to pass.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You've perhaps never heard of Douglas Bader? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MF, While this is something that I think should be done, I don't see it happening... but not because of admins protecting their power... but because we are too big a beaucracy to get it to work. There's a reason why the founding fathers set us up as a republic and not a true democracy. But I would have no problem giving some of the tools to people... CapitalR, one of my former candidates, didn't need all of the tools. He only needed one or two. Take some of those tools and issue them piecemeal... and then have a full package for others.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikiworld didnt collapse when rollback was unbundled. Would it collapse if, say, the ability to see unwatched pages was also unbundled? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that is one ability (there may be others, like the ability to edit through autoblocks) that should probably just be bundled with rollback instead of the admin bit. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the thing about rollback is that it's just a faster way of "undoing" an edit. It's not an administrator function anymore than using Twinkle or Huggle. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a faster way of undoing a number of consecutive edits, as you obviously know. But I agree with you, so why was there such resistance to unbundling rollback do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Most likely not, but what would happen if the block button was unbundled? Just playing Devil's Advocate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd ask a different question. How many users would want to have access to the block button? Not me, for sure. A very good case can clearly be made for keeping some functions in the hands of a trusted priesthood. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an allure associated with the block button. It's arguably the most powerful. Unfortunately, Kurt is right about a few eggs who are power hungry I guess. Nevertheless, I myself have a different question. How easy would it be to unbundle the tools? technically I mean. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The most powerful and therefore potentially the most damaging. In my WikiUptopia an RfA would be all about trusting an editor with the power to block other users. All the rest is just housekeeping so far as I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, much much easier than it will be to firmly establish the consensus that doing so is a good idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I long ago gave up any hope of establishing a consensus to do anything on wikipedia. Other than to defend the staus quo that is, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me express what I am trying to get at in a different way. Here stateside, we have the term Doctor. With that term, there are certain perceived privileges and rights that go along with that title. One such privilege is the right that any individual with a PhD,, in any given field, has the right to be addressed by the term Doctor. The term Doctor, in and of itself bestows the impression of expert – knowledgeable – speaks with authority – counselor. However, in real life we qualify what that title of Doctor may mean in any given field. Medical – Judicial – English – Theology - Engineering – Education - Veterinary and so on and so on. In addition, within any given field we restrict the tools that are bestowed on any individual, with the term of Doctor, to tools that are appropriate to their field. The person with a Doctorate in Architectural Engineering may certify structural drawings on buildings, but not neuter your pet. Likewise, a Medical Doctor can prescribe medication to ease that pulled muscle but cannot argue a case before a court of law. However, here at Wikipedia, once bestowed with the term Administrator you get all the tools, to use as you see fit. My feelings, are that if we unbundle the tools – we would not need the expert -of – all –trades to be qualified for Administrator, but allow qualified individuals in a given field access to the tools that they may need to be more efficient and effective, without going through the process of a full blown Rfa. In my mind, a win-win to all parties. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. Think about how it would have to work: either we set an RFA type process for each of the unbundled rights, or we give them to autoconfirmed users, or users who have passed some other arbitrary milestone. With the first, the proposal is to set a whole set of new processes along the lines of this one, which most here agree that if not broken, is severely deficient. Like Iridescent, I couldn't really see where I could trust an editor to delete but not block, and the same goes for many of the other admin tools. I see the other choice as totally unworkable. Imagine User:Grawp being able to move to page delete vandalism, or being able to avoid the title blacklist. All this would do is dramatically increase the workload for the admins with the lot. And probably the rest of us also. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing suggests a bundle of weird scenario's. Q: "Hey, you're an admin! Could you take a look at the edit war that's going on over at Steve?" A: "Oh, sorry, I'm just a Delete and Un-Protect admin, I can't help." or Q: "Could you block for that guy that keeps vandalising Jim? Oh, and make it an auto-block, I think that IP might be his." A: "I would, but I only passed the un-block RfA. I'm going for the semi-protection RfA next week! Maybe even full protection, in a few months."--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Barring the sarcasm, no it doens't. We could select a few tools that people could use that would be helpful that don't require RfA's that we could trust Admins to authorize.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We could do that, seeing that requests for rollback seems to work smoothly. But which rights could we give that would be useful in reducing the overall workload of administrators? The ones that should absolutely not be handed out are for me: delete, block, and protect/edit protected. Unless templates etc are split off. What is left doesn't seem worth creating a process to give rights for. It would be interesting to know which tools people seeking adminship are most interested in. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but isn't it rather naive to suppose that all of the people seeking adminship care one whit about the tools? Wouldn't you agree that it's at least as likely that a significant number only care about the admin status? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly - hence my last statement. Kevin (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot think of one admin tool that needs less trust that others(other than rollback which is already separate). Lets keep them together. _{1 != 2} 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Judgment matters more than trust. Blocks, page protections and deletions all generate drama. Then there are tangential issue like the naming - we'd care far less about civility if admins were called janitors (and saw themselves that way). There are a few admin action that does require a higher level of trust than the others. Certain page deletions (like Ed Poor's deletion of VFD can crash Wikipedia). And then there's one admin action that could send us to the database dumps. Per BEANS, I'm not going to talk about it further. But yes, there are things that require a greater level of trust than others, IMO. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that most of the tools (blocks, protection, etc...) require trust but viewing unwatched pages? That seems like something beyond trivial in comparison. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] protected pages

Personally, IMHO, the number one tool that should be granted right now in the same mode that rollback is granted, is the ability to edit protected pages. The number one reason why I see people getting ALL of the tools when they only need one is to work on protected pages---this means people who work on templates or other places that are typically protected. This "power" doesn't grant any power to block/protect or otherwise endanger offending others.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But if you don't have enough trust in them to protect or block, why trust them to edit protected pages?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Either you trust someone to not abuse tools or your don't. Editing protected pages can do plenty of damage to NPOV, one of our primary goals. Rollback is an exception because it can't do anything that can't be done without rollback. _{1 != 2} 01:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that analagous to asking if you don't trust someone with a gun, why trust them with a spoon? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. I am saying that just because someone can be trusted with foam rubber(rollback) does not mean they should have sharp objects(protection, blocking, editing protected pages). _{1 != 2} 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman makes a good point. Yes, all of the tools carry with them some responsibility, but, let's face it, some tools are more "deleterious" to the project when misused than others. Editing protected pages is useful (and probably the less damaging in the general sense) for users who wish to do no harm. However, block, delete and protect can "do more harm" even if unintentional more often than not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is less harmful when abused. Editing protected pages gives a direct advantage over other users. Yes it can be reversed, but so can the other tools. Consider the fact that anyone with this tool in a bad mood can fuck with the main page or templates that appear in thousands of articles like {{fact}}. We should keep the tools together because we need trust and sense for all of them. _{1 != 2} 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is only one tool that can't be reversed, the block button. Everything else is just housekeeping. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We actually do have an unblock button which does reverse a block, very handy. _{1 != 2} 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment simply proves to me that you ought not to have access to the block button if you believe that the damage it causes can be so easily reversed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get my point, I am saying that any of the admin tools can cause damage the is not easily reversed, even if the action itself is reversed. _{1 != 2} 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a user for shoddy reasons is far more damaging than editing a protectrd page and screwing with it. Users are vital to Wikipedia. Blocking them and turning them off to the project should be avoided at all costs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting blocked for an unnecessary reason is indeed annoying, my block log isn't clean just because of that. I didn't leave Wikipedia because of it, but I'm sure many others have and careless blocks are something to be avoided at all costs. Useight (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The block can be undone, but the block summary and the fallout from a bad block are everlasting, indeed. The only admin ability I think should be bundled with rollback isn't a tool, rather the ability to edit through an auto-block. I was caught in an auto-block about a year ago, and while it didn't take long to get it taken care of, it seems like unnecessary process. Lara❤Love 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the ability to edit protected pages could be parcelled out to people who need it. The average joe doesn't need rollback---the only people who are going to show a need for rollback (generally) are the vandal fighters. Likewise, the average user won't have a need to edit a protected page---I don't think I've ever edited a protected page unless it was DYK's. That being said, there are several candidates who have come through here over the past year whose need for the tools are the ability to work on protected templates or other things that they've created but have since been protected. These people, whose ability to contribute to wikipedia, are getting all of the tools because they have a demonstrated need for one. This leaves us in a precarious position, what happens when a person who has an excellent history of working on Templates has a lack of policy knowledge? Do we deny him/her the ability to work in the area she/he is best qualified? Preventing that person from effectively work on things they may have originally designed? Or do we lower our standards elsewhere and give them the tools and hope that they don't block people inappropriately with them? As an admin, I wouldn't give the ability to edit protected pages to anybody, it would have to be a person who has a demonstrated need to do so. With that in mind, I do believe it should be unbundled from the package in a manner similar to rollback.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about Balloonman's idea too. Due to recent heavy and tricky vandalism, a set of templates appearing on several pages had to be protected indefinitely. The problem: The one person most familiar with these templates and having spent hours maintaining them is not a sysop. Editing via talk page >> admin >> template has the disadvantage that this editor won't be able to directly monitor how the changes affect the templated pages. I would support this unbundling, it just shouldn't be another badge people wish to stick on their lapel, but a precision tool reserved for cases such as the one I'm mentioning. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's me. I think this is a fantastic idea.. I don't want all the power to block people or whatever but not being able to edit protected pages is frustrating and surreal. I'm not going to vandalize them- I made them! .froth. (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this idea of being able to run for the ability to edit protected templates. I have suggested minor fixes using the edit-protected process, but that is tedious. I'm in the weird situation that I can't edit this template, which I created. Some of us computer geeks could do useful gnoming work, while not being particularly competent in dealing with the people issues. I frankly don't understand the dynamics of people's interaction on the Wiki at all, but I do understand ParserFunctions quite well. Merzul (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent over whether editprotected should be available separate from the 'sysop' bucket of permissions like block, protect and delete, but please, for the love of god, can we not make it into its own usergroup? We currently have three userrights ('rollbacker', 'ipblockexempt' and 'accountcreator') each of which conveys only one permission. Do we really need to be able to tailor our permissions that closely to the personality of the user? Would we ever have a reason to say "we trust you with rollback, but not with accountcreator"?? I've said it somewhere before: bundle these permissions together into one new usergroup, call it something other than "trusted" (my previous suggestion, carries the wrong connotations of "not trusted" for non-members), and hand it out like rollback (maybe with a one-week waiting period). That would fit fully into our existing hierarchy of user groups: the fact that they're based on trust, not ability or authority, and that we give the tools to those we trust not to abuse them, not those who have a desperate need of them. Happy‑melon 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] irc, or other forms of off-wiki communication

Just a general query to satisfy my own curiosity. If a potential nominee has little or no off-wiki communications, how is that weighed against them? The user does not have e-mail enabled in their profile, nor do they chat on the (seemingly bazillions of) irc channels. Yngvarr (c) 00:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that is rarely comes up unless there is drama involved off wiki. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me run something up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes, as David Brent probably said. Does it not seem odd that a few RfAs attract an initial feeding frenzy of supports/opposes, whereas others meander along at a more human pace? Coincidence? Perhaps the weighting against a potential nominee is the lack of opportunity for a little bit of "canvassing"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it depends on how well known the candidate is. People tend to have stronger opinions about those they have interacted with. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I was alluding to the speed at which certain nominations attract attention, not the opinions expressed one way or the other. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus. Enigma ^message 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MF may have a point, but, to be less cynical about the whole thing, bear in mind that a lot of RfAs are heavily anticipated, especially with candidates who are well known, hence the droves of users who come to support. The only time I notice a flurry of opposes is an obvious SNOW situation. I don't mean the final count, I mean instantaneous opposes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're talking about half a dozen or so early opposes in the case of snow candidates, so once again not quite the same thing. I'm also slightly puzzled by your skewed argument that this only applies to those candidates that other editors want to support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's my belief that the origin of inflated oppose votes (if this is what you're getting at) is non-comprehensive pile-ons. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed your point. Are you asking if we think that there is off-wiki canvassing going on on some RFAs? Kevin (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily intentional canvassing, but I think it's probably true that users who spend a lot of time socialising in IRC get a lot of support simply because people like chatting to them. I don't IRC so I don't know if RFAs ever get linked there, but presumably people mention it to each other. Off wiki contact is pretty much uncontrollable so there's nothing we can do about it, and neither would I want us to. naerii - talk 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is in fact the case, I doubt it's do to canvassing, but more people just talking about things, and since news tends to travel much faster on IRC (hence the "I" part), edits to the RfA happen faster, and people talk most about people they know or controversial things, so if they see someone that frequents IRC, they'll mention it in the channel. It's not canvassing, it's just simple discussion. For example, CSCWEM2 got several score supports before CSCWEM even accepted, just because people were talking about it, and since everyone knew CSCWEM, it was an easy decision to make, speeding up everything. I certainly wouldn't say this is necessarily a bad thing, like "canvassing" implies, however. --Rory096 01:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know in a particular recent instance I had been watching and waiting for a particular RfA for some time. If you keep track of people you view as approaching readiness, perhaps even watch listing their RfA, then you have the opportunity to vote pretty quick on it. This particular RfA was not up when I went to bed and was up when I got up the next morning. I partook as soon as I could as I was eager o do so.

Despite some of the finger pointing about canvassing in a recent RfA (from opposers and supporters), the last time I looked at Wikipedia:Canvassing, it was discouraged to the degree of disruption it caused. It is/was not forbidden. Since the things run several days, it shold not be a problem beyond the general reluctance some of us feel to be the first to oppose. I also would not be surprised if some opposers in a recent RfA had not watch listed it because they did not want to miss the opportunity of participating.

The question of the IRC Cabal goes bck at least two years. Maybe longer. I did not partake in RfA more than two yers ago. As I recall, there were outraged cries of cabalism and votestacking then. Dlohcierekim 05:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All admins should have email enabled in their profile, to allow discussion of blocks and other issues. Many will oppose if this is not the case. WP:TINC, IRC is not, has never been, and will never be a requirement for adminship, but is nonetheless convenient for coordination and socialization. Andre (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of it has to do with how well-known a candidate is. At this point, I generally only vote in RFAs for users I've interacted with. DHMO, for example, is active on other projects (Commons and Meta) and he's active in two of WP's largest Wikiprojects (GA and FA). I believe he's also a member of the Aussie Cabal, working on articles with that group and participating on that noticeboard, although I could be wrong on that one. Lastly, he participates in a lot of administrative areas and is on IRC, so he's a visible guy who's interacted with hordes of people. A lot of the RFAs that go with only 30-some supports a no to a couple opposes are, in my view, typically the gnomes who haven't interacted with many people, haven't really gotten into conflicts, aren't widely recognized. This RFA has also been widely anticipated, as is evidenced by the many nom offers he's received as of late. Lara❤Love 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd say one of the primary factors that determines how large a sampling an RfA gets is how "front-and-center" the editor is (other factors, like how often drama follows the candidate, can also play a role). Like Lara said, someone that's in the background garners less eyes than someone making strong pushes to improve numerous articles across different topics (someone working on a suite of related articles is more likely to keep running into the same people). There's nothing wrong with it, but the gnome just doesn't instill that "all fired up" feeling in someone idly perusing the open RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the speed at which so many of these "idle perusers" come out of the woodwork in some RfAs strike you as even remotely odd? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In general? No. I know that, for me, there are times where I actually pay attention the RfAs more often than other times, and I realize that many other people may work on similar cycles; every once and a while, those cycles match up. *shrug*
To use a personal example, my first RfB had 30+ supporters right out of the gate before it started to crash and burn, and I know for a fact that I didn't do any canvassing (I was on IRC when I transcluded it, and someone almost instantly made a comment about it). There are RSS feeds for every page; perhaps that's how there's such a huge number so quickly sometimes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really: the resposne rate is not out of line with other heavily-watched pages on the wiki like ANI. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There can be lots of reasons for the speed of reaction, people watch RFA, people may watch the edits of someone that's there (I know for a fact lots of people watch my talk page and my edits), RSS feeds, etc, and yes even canvassing (but hopefully not). — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's also those who watchlist in anticipation. I've had WP:RFA/DHMO_3 watchlisted for at least two months. Heavily anticipated RFAs are often spoken of in IRC. The candidate and various aspects of their candidacy (answers to questions, opposer concerns, etc) are discussed among a few editors and, of course, others see this and are drawn to the request. I wasn't online during the time this RFA went live, so I don't know about the first few hours, but I know an opposer joined #wikipedia-en-admins at one point to ask why so many people were supporting, wanting to know what they were missing. Lara❤Love 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think enabling e-mail should be a requirement for admins; I've received probably over 200 e-mails from people wondering about their blocks (many of whom I unblocked). · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any "requirements" of admins at all. They're nothing special, just volunteers like everyone else. If I perform an action on wiki, it can be discussed on wiki. Until I get a paycheck for adminning, I'll continue to not have email enabled. (I have a disclaimer on my userpagethat goes into more detail about my longstanding feelings about IRC and email. I agree Andonic that some things are sensitive however. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To provide a counter-argument, I've almost never received an admin-related email through Wikipedia (I think just one, but it was such an obvious vandalism-only account that it didn't warrant a response). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that, having placed upwards of 700 blocks, I've received somewhere between 10 and 20 block-related emails. Most were not particularly persuasive, though I see how calling someone an arrogant, power-mad fucktard might look like a winning argument to the sender. One bitter fella sent me a series of Harry Potter spoilers (around when the last book came out), though fortunately I'd already finished it. I think it's useful to have that line of communication open, but like Keeper I'm not a big fan of "mandatory" email for admins - if the blocking admin doesn't have email enabled, there are plenty of other means of appealing a block. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...wait, you seem to be insinuating that calling someone a fucktard isn't the best way of convincing people that you're right. That's crazy talk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the opposite side, I get admin related emails quite often, but if I take an on-wiki action therefrom, I make sure I can back it up with on wiki evidence. The only exception to this would be privacy matters which I am always willing to handle via normal privacy channels, such as OTRS, a CU, arbcom, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves that it's not just administrators who receive abusive emails. Failing someone's pride and joy at a GA review, for instance, can sometimes lead to a flurry of emails questioning everything from your parents' marital status to the IQ of your dog. I do have email enabled, and I always have had, but I don't see any reason why anyone, administrator or not, should be required to be available via email. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have e-mail enabled, but I rarely respond via e-mail. I respond on-wiki, or not at all. Only when the situation specifically calls for private communication do I keep to private channels. I don't consider the admin IRC a private venue, there are over 40 admins there usually, and lately the logs are leaked on a regular basis. _{1 != 2} 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be virtually impossible to make email mandatory for admins anyways. If it was, IAR could quickly be applied, and then what, we would block the admin for not enabling email? Desysop them? The only thing possible is reccomending admins use it, but given arguments by Keeper and others, it should really just be left as is now. If someone wants to use it, let them, otherwise, don't worry. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but having it enabled doesn't ensure antying; as Until(1==2) pointed out, it's quite easy to simply ignore stuff that comes through. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And for everyone that has a better grasp of English than I do, I'd like to point out that having it enabled doesn't ensure anything, either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry EVula.... couldn't resist :) Pedro :  Chat  19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this an example of "typical English humour", Pedro? Darkspots (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Being rather "typically English" I guess so! Sorry, my edit was a bit silly, but after recent events on and off WP a little humour probably doesn't go amiss. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I thought it was funny, just having a little dig at the former colonial overlords. :) Darkspots (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, please feel free to add you expression of interest to WIKIPROJECT:PENAL-COLONY... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, mine is WIKIPROJECT:WE'RE GOOD WITH THE TEA, OH LOOK, HANDY HARBOR OVER HERE. Darkspots (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)That is a lot of big letters for a very small joke. :)

OffWiki communication is, unforutnately, easy to deal with. We can't stop admins/users from conversing about OnWikipedia business. And I don't think we necessarily should. However, with this offwiki conversating policy and guidelines can be subverted such as canvassing for votes/consensus, shopping for a blocking admin, and the like. Think of it like we dealt with the CAMERA fiasco. If we have proof or find out for sure that anyone broke a wikipolicy offwiki they should be confronted regarding it. But other than that there's really nothing we can do other than stress that guidlines and wiki policy shouldn't be mangled offwiki or on wiki. Like all things Wiki, we'll just have to rely on good faith. It's not ideal, but it is what it is. Beam 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All the candidates listing after The Big One...

198 supports. 1 oppose. Not sure what to make of it, other than the ol' AGF standard. The other response, is that this is some sort of reaction and not wanting to start up another mess. Thoughts? Quick addendum... this is saying nothing about the candidates, just about the overwhelming support trend. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Trends like this happen. The one thing that I've noticed never changing is that when RfA regulars feel like a candidate should be opposed, they oppose, no matter what the climate in the air is. Darkspots (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly how it should be. Candidates that are lacking shouldn't be passed just because their RfAs are going well; if there's a problem, it should be brought up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Darkspots (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All the candidates listing before the big one...149 supports. 48 oppose. For what it's worth. Kingturtle (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Big One was withdrawn. Enigma ^message 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that RFA was full of twists and turns until the end. Useight (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope that we can use this experience as a spur to try some new ideas for RfA. This RfA exposed a fair number of problems with the process, at least in my opinion. Maybe the community is ready to experiment with some new approaches, and test them out? I hope so anyway. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when/where you're doing this Filll. I have some ideas, and I know Gazimoff is (presumably) working on some stuff as well. This is all rather ridiculous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Gazimoff has indeed been working on some stuff, and has his initial thoughts on how to review the whole process at WP:RREV. Thoughts are welcome on the article's talk page. Feel free to share it around, it will probably be fairly comprehensive.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I think RfA works just fine. The flaws lie in human behaviour, and you're never going to change that, no matter how much you refine the process in an attempt to eliminate it. It's funny; I often see people complaining that RfA is broken because "qualified" candidates aren't passing - but no two of those complainers would ever agree on which candidates were qualified or not. People who think RfA is broken because people are failing "shouldn't fail" always seem to miss the fact that when those RfAs fail it means that a bunch of people disagree with you. Refining the process to make more people pass will never ever work because nobody will ever agree on which people exactly should pass. And I would be very hesistant about making changes because of what happened in DHMO's RfA - I think maybe 2-3 RfAs have been that acrimonious in history, and considering how long Wikipedia's been around, that's pretty good going. We shouldn't overhaul a system that usually works because of an anomaly. I like RfA. Everyone gets to have their say in as transparent a manner as can be. It's nice. naerii - talk 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are similar to Naerii's. I'm a little skeptical that this was process malfunction, rather than a very well-known user who draws very mixed sentiment. I'm having trouble imagining that any possible system, in which 400 people have such divergent opinions, is going to operate smoothly. Certainly new ideas are welcome, but I don't see any evidence that we actually have some sort of systemic problem with RFA rather than divergent ideas in the community about what we're looking for. --JayHenry (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe we should start a subpage here to collect some thoughts and discussion. Would anyone like to join me at /ReformDiscussion?--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Better idea - Wikipedia: RfA Review :) Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the talk page of Wikipedia: RfA Review would be more appropriate. Also, as a sidebar, I don't think "the big one" is an example of a broken system (even though I personally feel it is broken). We had a massive sample size and weighty opinions. That's all. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not like placing the blame on RFA, which has its flaws, when blame can equally, and perhaps more appropriately, be based on candidates who are equally flawed, and who have both rabid supporters with their own flaws, and rabid opposition with flaws as well. You have a system that is imperfect. You have a candidate that a great many people like and are friendly with, but has a checkered past when it comes to the actual trust needed for an admin. You have supporters who cannot abide any opposition to their e-friends, and cannot understand the concerns of others. You have opposition who cannot stand the candidate and will never ever until hell freezes over, admit any scenario under which he will be worthy of adminship. Oh, and then you have people who support or oppose because of the other 200 people that either supported or opposed, without even bothering to come up with an opinion. I think all of those latter flaws are MUCH greater concerns than the RFA process, and thankfully are unique to this particular candidate (and a very very slim minority of others).⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it negate the purpose of a process review. If we research every option, consider every prospect and cover everything exhaustively, yet come back and report that the current process is the most optimal despite it's flaws, then it's still an exercise worth undertaking. A review is just as much to validate that what we currently do is best practice as it is exploring alternatives and making recommendations. Hope this clears things up, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Naerii above. The problem isn't the process, it's the people. How do you chance how people act though? That would be awfully tough to do. Wizardman 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wiz is right. However we do it, RfA will be (as it is now and always has been) a way to reach consensus on wether a candidate can be trusted with the tools or not. The only way to get rid of all the problems it has now with the so-called over-reacting and the Bad Faith is to literally turn it into a vote. You will never, ever reach a consensus on a controversial issue without someone saying "no". And most of the time, that "no" becomes quite a bit of Wiki-drama. There's nothing you can do about it besides learn to live with the major fault of Wikipedia that is called discussion.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 02:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Update:It's now 273 supports against 2 opposes, by my count. The RfAs directly before it did not go very well, on the other hand. Enigma ^message 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The "big one" was a Three Ring Circus. The fault, if there was any, was not with the RFA process. Considering how strongly people felt one way or another, I think it went well. Cheera, Dlohcierekim 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester, you put it quite well. Dlohcierekim 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm clueless as to what's going on here. What's "the big one"? What do you mean by 273 supports against 2 opposes? Huh? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The big one: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3. The number of supports and opposes refers to the total number of supports and opposes across every RFA currently running previous to that RFA and the total number of supports and opposes across every RFA after it. The point (I think) is that "the big one" was so shitty people are supporting RFAs out of some sort of desire to have less drama for a while (or something, not sure what the reasoning is). naerii - talk 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then those who transcluded their RFA immediately after "the big one" have an fine-tuned sense of timing. :P Useight (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that seems a rather arcane topic to me, hence my confusion. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also an incredibly skewed/cynical perspective about RfA, even moreso than usual. Could it be that the last few candidates have been qualified? I think everybody needs to leave DMHO's last RfA in the past where it belongs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea why anyone would be cynical about the RfA process. Enigma ^message 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants me to ruin the "support" run, I could always go for bureaucrat again. Neıl 龱 07:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Neil's RFB. He has impeccable timing, what with opening it right after a disasterous RFA... (now doesn't that sound silly everyone?) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 336 Supports, 3 Opposes

Sure, trends do happen, but why do they happen? I can honestly say that after DHMO's finished, the last thing I wanted to do was shake up another RfA of a good-faith candidate. This is more of a sub-conscious thing, I don't think I'm handling RfAs in the last few days any differently than I normally do, but maybe I am. Maybe a lot of people who were involved in DHMOs are. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

336 Supports, 3 Opposes leaves out two SNOWs (1-9, 0-6), one NOTSNOW (0-1), and one consensus not reached (85-55) that all occured after H2O's RfA was closed. So I am not sure if the trend you've identified actually exists. Kingturtle (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be neccesary to mention the SNOWs here, but thanks for doing so ( a 50 edit candidate wont fall subject to a trend and pass an RfA). I'm not suggesting that anything is iron-clad here, but in the five "real-chance" RfAs to start after DHMOs really cemented itself as controversial, its 336-3. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

...because there are five good candidates. I don't see a trend, I see them as completely unrelated. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought maybe yesterday, but today I'm really thinking its backlash/trend. I think all five candidates are good and will likely pass, but forgive me for saying this, I am surprised to have so many 100% candidates one after the other. Not to say they should/shouldn't be 100%, but we have candidates all the time who are stellar and still finish in that 90-95% range. Furthermore, most legit candidates are good candidates, doesn't mean they will get 100%, doesn't even mean they will pass. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know though Gwynand. I studied each of the candidates that I'm supporting (and obviously, I'm a nominator on two of them so perhaps I'm blinded by my own judgment of two of the candidates), and came to the conclusion that they are excellent candidates with no overwhelming reason to do anything other than support. I think you may also be seeing a backlash of nominator's being extremely careful about who they nominate. Better nominations = better candidates = massive support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodpoint Keep, but then, aha! That's the trend maybe? Not nominating a possibly borderline candidate after such drama? That actually makes sense, the five current candidates all seem quite good to me. It is quite likely that voting has nothing to do with it, but maybe nominating, someting else. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets name that something else "Keepers three blind mice". ;p — _Maggot^Syn 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two then, one for each nomination. — _Maggot^Syn 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) re to gwynanadI just recently turned down nominating an extremely viable candidate. 7000+ edits, lots of mainspace, good civil user, been here 2+ years active, clean block log. But two failed RFAs (in the distant past), a lot of reverting/automated tool use/vandy-patrol. No GA/FA. Someone I would support for sure, but not nominate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwynand, "gwynanad" is about the worst butchering of your name that I've done yet. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of RfAs since 1 May that had 30 or more opinions cast.

Date closed - tally - result
 1 May - 100/0/0 - successful
 1 May - 59/9/5 - successful
 2 May - 60/3/4 - successful
 4 May - 17/32/11 - unsuccessful
 5 May - 92/20/2 - successful
11 May - 88/11/5 - successful
12 May - 100/0/1 - successful
13 May - 8/25/7 - unsuccessful
13 May - 114/10/4 - successful
13 May - 8/34/9 - unsuccessful
14 May - 68/44/28 - unsuccessful
14 May - 128/10/9 - successful
15 May - 112/2/1 - successful
17 May - 161/1/2 - successful
19 May - 64/34/19 - unsuccessful
21 May - 19/37/13 - unsuccessful
21 May - 46/40/8 - unsuccessful
21 May - 83/4/2 - successful
21 May - 19/13/13 - unsuccessful
21 May - 23/18/3 - unsuccessful
22 May - 90/2/4 - successful
23 May - 67/28/5 - unsuccessful
23 May - 66/27/6 - unsuccessful
24 May - 7/25/6 - unsuccessful
24 May - 73/0/1 - successful
24 May - 48/31/4 - unsuccessful
24 May - 93/12/5 - successful
27 May - 69/10/3 - successful
27 May - 186/5/3 - successful
27 May - 3/24/4 - unsuccessful
2 June - 92/0/0 - successful
3 June - 300/83/17 - unsuccessful
4 June - 72/13/2 - successful
4 June - 84/39/2 - unsuccessful

Just to help you look for trends :) Kingturtle (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How did you get that... did you make it? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Magic 'crat pixie dust I reckon..... :) Pedro :  Chat  16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Old school. Pen and paper. ;) Kingturtle (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well I realized this morning that If I actually did some sort of analysis as opposed to just saying "Hey, look at these numbers!" then there might have been more substance for discussion. Thanks for putting that together. I'm going to keep the current 5 noms together, then maybe do a further analysis after all 5 are done. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, there was a string of six consecutive no-oppose successes on and around 26 January 2008. Kingturtle (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And I see that Mongo's 200+ vote right-down-the-middle RfA was right at that time... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. Seems there really might be a pattern. Useight (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two occurences could be a pattern, but also equally designatable as a coincidence. I'm not convinced yet. I am convinced that RFA sucks the life out of good editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I admit that I'm feeling a bit like David Duchovny here, but also look at at the 6 in a row that passed... only a total of 220 supports, 0 opposes. Only about 37 votes on average. Mongo had more than 220 votes in that RfA alone. Might be something there. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may make a comment here, wearing my statistical advisor and consultant's hat (last worn about 9 years ago, but still fitting, if I may delude myself a little)? At the moment, there isn't enough data to make even a very worthwhile informal assessment. One of the reasons why is the following: around the "key event RfA", there are nominations that are unsuitable to be included in an analysis, as their "causal history" in the ways one thinks relevant, are mixed. The essence of what is being sought for is whether the "key event RfA" had any particular effect on the RfA nominations after it had happened compared with before it happened. But there are nominations that took place in such a way that parts of them were in operation during the key event RfA. So, these RfAs had a potentially mixed causal history in the ways we are interested in detecting and analyzing. A better way to detemine whether any effect can be seen would to be use only RfA nominations that were not in operation during any of the time the "key event RfA" was in operation. So, one needs to include RfAs that had already finished by the time the "key event RfA", as well as including RfAs that started only after the key event RfA had finished. Any casual influence the "key event RfA" had can then be investigated by carrying out comparisons of the RfAs before and the RfAs after. The first set is no problem, but there aren't yet enough of the second set (the "only after" ones) to begin to draw any sensible conclusion. An additional problem is that any causal effect one is interested in may well have a time-limited or decaying effect. (I'm ignoring the effects of unknown size associated with the dependencies of permitting the same editors giving opinions in numerous RfAs when there are differences amongst the editors about their tendency to prefer an opinion of a particular value (support, oppose, or neutral). Ignoring these dependencies will affect the actual validity and reliability of the conclusions one can draw, but to an unknown degree. If one is prepared to still carry on with the analysis, then some kind of Log linear analysis, much like Logistic regression would be the correct formal statistical procedure to use, but it does assume that the dependencies I mentioned are absent. Any informal procedure may well deceive one because it is informal and not constructed to remove various potential cognitive illusions brought about by our psychology. It still might be entertaining to do, however. Do I hear the gentle sound of snoring now?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not snoring. Just heads exploding. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding the DMHO RFA - why was it disastrous? Not what happened in it to make it go the way it did, I know that ... rather, why is the way it went (high participation RFA, failed when the candidate withdrew) considered "disastrous"? Neıl 龱 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not neccesarily "disastrous". I think something to be said is that it upset a lot of people, including myself, and I opposed. It really felt like a war more than trying to build consensus, something that supporters and opposers both agreed with (at least some of us), and DHMO was in the middle. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant "disasterous" as in "train wreck". Highly visible, highly contended, and impossible for some to look away. Like a trainwreck. I was only referring to the "what happened in it to make it go the way it did", nothing more. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The string of six in a row in January were simultaneous to the Mongo RfA, not after. Also, you're excluding from that string a 27 Jan unsucessful result of 19/18/5 and one soon after on 28 Jan at 13/13/7. Kingturtle (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, and that's why I think I might be moving into "I saw a UFO!" territory, seeing what I want to. One might consider 13/13 or 19/18 RfAs has not really ever having a legit chance of passing. It's tough for me to find an "answer" on any of this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now, Gwynand, everyone knows UFOs are real, we have several referenced, fact based article right here on Wikipedia to prove it! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Real Test

The real test will come in about a week or two after I get back from vacation... I have a coachee and a half (not a true coachee) who are about to transclude their RfA's... I've warned both of them off of accepting noms from me, but both of them are following in Tan's footsteps... They want me despite some potential backlash.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully your self-admitted missteps will not weigh heavily against the candidate, if at all. I couldn't think of anything more unfair, although anything is possible. We've seen criticism in all forms. Word of advice, add a caveat to your noms : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In the RFA, the !voters should be looking at the merits of the candidate, not the recent out-of-character chapter in the history of the nominator. Hopefully that's what they'll do. Useight (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While I have a feeling I came under some greater scrutiny after the elephant was revealed, my RFA still went through. If the candidates are qualified, they'll be fine. In order words - I agree with Useight. xenocidic (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Review - Baselining the Process

After some initial discussion, I'm looking to baseline the review process at WP:RfA Review. This basically means three things:

• Check and make sure that the understanding of the current process is correct
• Agree that the review process is appropriate and valid
• Formulate a suitable list of questions in order to gather thoughts and opinions on the current RfA process. Developing solutions is out of scope for this phase and will come later in the process

Should you be interested in taking part in the baseline phase of the review, please feel free to discuss these three points at WT:RfA Review. Just to note, there is no guarantee that the review process will produce any recommendations. It is possible that the RfA process will be validated by this review and remain unchanged. Without a review (also known as a process audit) it is impossible to know this with any certainty.

Many thanks for any time you can input into the review. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody think this is important enough for WP:CENT? —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the next step should goto CENT. Beam 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at adding this to WP:CENT later today. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Personnaly I think that the current RFA process is ridiculous and needs to be completely overhauled. There is no standardization and very little requirements. I have seen users give a no vote for the pettiest of reasons and others meeting the exact same criteria sneak by unattested. I have seen some extremely rude and belittleing comments left about users and I have seen comments to questions that sound more like someone gaming the system and giving the answer they think that the voters want to hear than someone who truly speaks their mind and I have seen WAY too many get voted into adminship who do nothing but run from talk page to talk page and wiki project to wikiproject leaving their comments and shooting down others work with very little if any article participation. I personnally feal that creating and editing articles should be the first and primary focus not the reason to oppose because they haven't spent enough time in the wikispace. In the end though I think that this will get shot down, like all the recommendations before it to overhaul change the RFA process because it is nearly impossible to get a consenus vote on something that is truly important. I grant you its happened a few times but its very rare.--Kumioko (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's partly why I'm doing this work on the review. Some editors think the process needs an overhaul, while others feel that it is fit for purpose. Hopefully this review will settle the debate once and for all. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sample questions are now up for discussion before the initial survey process starts. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 09:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New global userright

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#New_global_userright on how our local policy should reflect changes to the global user rights policies at Meta. Please feel free to stop by and comment. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apollo1986 needs closing

it's from January 2008, I think it's finished its run. Beyonf a WP:NOTNOW at this point but I gather it wasn't ever transcluded. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. Andre (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good decision: if the RfA was never transcluded, then there's no point in it being closed as unsuccessful if it wasn't an RfA that ever ran in the first place. Acalamari 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't exactly sure what needed to be done in this case. Since s/he seems to have returned lately, I'd hate to have it bite them if s/he decides to do a future RfA. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H20's Rfa

I've been putting this off for long enough. I owe the community (and H20) an explanation for my behavior last week and to beg their forgiveness. I honestly don't know if I can do the former

When I first met H20, I was convinced that he was already an admin and my impression was that he was a damn good one. When he told me otherwise, I was shocked. He told me that he wasn't an admin and asked me to coach him. I investigated his edits and read his previous RfA's and decided that I could help him. Maybe it was pride, but I thought I could help him overcome what the community saw as faults. I saw his problems at his previous RfA's as centering around the issues of Civility, Maturity, and Responsibility. I agreed to coach him under the condition that we wait until August before running. I put that stipulation in our agreement because I wanted him to prove his maturity and wait---he had 4 RfA's in less than a year and needed to distance himself from the community's belief that he was power hungry.

In our coaching I did run through some of the standard coaching excercises, but I focused on Civility, Maturity, and Responsibility. I felt that he was making progress in all three of those areas. Over the past month I received a few emails from people stating that they thought H20 was ready to run for adminship and wanted to know why I was holding him to his original agreement when he was ready. I explained to those people that I was asking him to wait until August as a sign of his improved maturity. That I wasn't stopping him from running, but that I would probably oppose if he ran. I also knew that I had the ammunition to kill an RfA---reading the coaching page, you could easily see most of it.

About a month ago, H20 emailed me asking me to run. Now, as far as I am concerned, he had earned the tools. He is one of the most committed and knowledgeable users on Wikipedia. He has the best interest of wikipedia at heart. I didn't respond to his email. He then made the request on his coaching page--I couldn't ignore that.

At this point I am caught between a rock and a hard place. As his coach, I have seen significant improvement in his Civility/Maturity/Responsibility... but I've also seen some major gaffs. Namely his comments off wiki---which despite being off wiki resulted in on-wiki drama. As his coach, I believed he needed to wait until the agreed upon time period of August. He also needed to improve his off-wiki conduct.

As his friend (and his coach) I have always been convinced that he is ready to be an admin and should be an admin. He knows wikipedia well enough to be my coach---and 90% of the people who are admins can learn from him. I've felt that way before I became his coach.

So here I am caught between the belief that he should wait, and the belief that he should be an admin already. To make matters worse, I had just nomed Xenocidic. In Xenocidic's RfA, I wrote, that despite Xenocidic's not having six months of edit history, it's not fair to him to force him to wait when he's ready now. How could I deny H20 the right to run for RfA based upon some arbitrary requirement when I just nom'ed a candidate saying that the arbitrary requirement should be ignored?

Due to my friendship with H20, my belief that he should be an admin, and peer pressure I decide to acquiesce and nom him. I know that if I (as his coach) don't nom him, his RfA would probably fail. I thought his nom was in enough danger without me putting an obstacle in it's path, but I didn't want it to fail. I cannot emphasize enough my personal belief that H20 SHOULD be an admin already and that we were merely jumping through hoops to reach something that should be a fait acompli. Who am I to stand in the way of somebody who, IMHO, should have been an admin already?

I didn't think his RfA was going to pass. On the one hand, *I* saw too many problems/issues that hadn't been fully addressed since his last RfA... on the other hand everybody else thought it would. Please note, I didn't want him to fail, I expected him to fail. That is why I told him in the one email I sent him that it would be easier to write an oppose than a nom. I expected others to see the elephant in the living room that I saw and oppose him for obvious reasons. (Remember, being a good admin and passing an RfA are two different things---I was confident about the former but doubted the later.)

Despite believing that his RfA was going to fail, I nom'd him any way. Which is a violation of what I've said previously... I've prided myself on noming only those candidates who I believe are A) ready to be an admin and B) who I believe can pass the RfA process. I then violated another one of my principles when I ignored what I felt were his weaknesses---in the past, I've always been upfront with the weaknesses of my nom's and then explained why those weaknesses shouldn't be used against the candidate. With H20, I chose to ignore mentioning his weaknesses because I couldn't explain why we should over look them. I couldn't explain why we should ignore his blog posts or insistence on moving his RfA to June rather than wait til August (or even July.) I was able to do so, but I couldn't explain why.

Thus, due to omission, I deceived the community.

Then we experienced the greatest RfA of all time... at first, I was incredibly proud of H20... but as the RfA progressed and nobody mentioned the elephant in the living room, my sins started to weigh on me. Then, for some inexplicable reason, I did what I did. It was very poorly thought and and executed even worse. I know that if I had given it an iota more thought, I could have raised my concerns and come clean in a much better manner. In a manner which wouldn't have resulted in all of the drama and pain that I caused. This is one of those actions that will probably haunt me for a long time.

This is not intended to exonerate me... what I did in the RfA was despicable. I handled it very poorly. Again, while I am asking for forgiveness, I don't expect it... maybe a little understanding, but not forgiveness... what I did to H20 and to this community is deplorable. Despite his shortcomings, and my belief that this RfA should have failed, I believe H20 SHOULD be an admin. I should not have nom'd him and if I did so, I shouldn't have hidden the elephants. For that I apologize to this community and to H20. I blew it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm acknowledging this, and not holding it against you, as I never did. You realized the mistake, and took corrective action. But thats just my opinion. — _Maggot^Syn 06:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make the following observation Balloonman. The encyclopedia has not been harmed. The vast majority of visitors to this website are our Most Important Thing ^TM - our readership - and they wouldn't have known a thing. Nothing got broke, for sure there was acrimony and internal upset, but that's Wikipedia.

Yes, you made mistakes in the way you handled things. But that's the way it goes. I understand, believe me I do, how hard it can be to balance on-wiki friendship with doing the right thing. And although I've never ever met a single Wikipedian in real life there are many editors who I would count as friends. So I know how these situations can develop.

I respect your candid admission, but I think the time has come to stop beating yourself up over it. Let's move on, heads held high, in the knowledge that everyone's work here - writing, taking photos, vandal whacking, deleting attack pages, discussing and commenting on the work and, yes, opining at RFA is both valued and essential in our common goal.

And let's all retain the pride that I personally believe we owe ourselves in being Wikipedians. Pedro :  Chat  07:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do plan on moving on... and re-establishing the trust/respect that I felt I had here before that incident. But I felt that I needed to clear the air and explain some things first.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're sorry for the wrong things. I don't see anything automatically wrong with nominating a candidate you don't think will pass. If you're trying to do what's best for the project, this does not always involve playing your cards face up. In general it should, but there might be exceptions. Where I think you went wrong was in having unbelievably bad judgement. When I look at this editor, I see a poorly-behaved kid, yet you somehow see some wonderful admin candidate. The most likely explanation I can think of is that your friendship has severely clouded your judgement.

Now I know, people will jump up and down and scream if I say that Wikipedia is not social networking and thus editors should not seek to make friends with other editors. So, forget the generalities- in your specific case, you have demonstrated that such friendships do interfere with your judgement, and thus they are harmful to the project. So, if you're really sorry and want to do something to make it better, stop trying to make friends with other editors. Or, if you must, don't participate in any RFA-related activities which involve your friends. We're here at RFA to honestly evaluate candidates, not cheer for our friends. Friday (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Friday, this isn't DHMO RFA#4. Why was this post necessary, may I ask? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I want him to change his behavior so a bad thing like this doesn't happen again. This goes for anyone who makes friends and then tries to get them promoted to admin. Everyone should stop it; it's harmful. Friday (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The nom was made in part because of friendship, but the beleif that he should be an admin existed before I ever talked to him. I have always believed that DHMO would be a fine admin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how bizarre. I guess that blows away my theory. Nevermind. Friday (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with nominating someone you don't think will pass. Such an act can be highly constructive. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't get it. To me, it looks like you've cut off your nose to spite your face (I'm not sure whether I've used this in the right context however, so don't quote me on it). If you really didn't think he'd pass because his coach didn't nominate him: did you not at least look towards the alternatives? Telling him to wait a little longer, for example? Rudget (Help?) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I still can't understand that particular example. One idea I'd considered tho, when we see myspacers who come in and treat Wikipedia like a MMORPG, is to go ahead and nominate them fairly quickly for adminship. When they fail, they may find that this makes Wikipedia less of a fun game for them, and they may get bored and wander off. This would save us lots of time and effort we otherwise spend babysitting them. Friday (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a teenager, am I sensible as an administrator? Rudget (Help?) 16:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously want me to answer that question? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. --Irpen 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's a rather (insert appropriate word here) question. Rudget (Help?) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a good idea on any level, but if people do it, please don't in any way misrepresent the nature of your nomination to the sucker^W"candidate", when making the offer, or to the community, in composing the nomination. Alai (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WRT immature teens, it's not that natural consequences are the best teacher; they're sometimes the only teacher. And why is it that anyone raising the points raised by Friday is squashed in all these discussions, as if it's somehow taboo to point out the immaturity and how much it took this particular RfA to overcome the social networking that had occurred? In fact, why are we still discussing this perfect storm? RfA worked in this case (where I suspect it fails in most others); in spite of the social networking and opposition to some of the opposition that led to a high support tally, the issues and concerns eventually came to light. The bigger question is how much of RfA is a popularity contest, fueled by admin coaching, participation in off-Wiki social networking, and supporting other editors at RfA, GAN and FAC without engaging critical faculties. RfA is a problem: we need a better means of desysopping to counteract this problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much right. If it was easier to desysop then there wouldn't be the same need for the popularity contest cum trial by fire that RfA has degenerated into. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, with respect to the latter half of that statement, would it be better to see a set FAC team which is initially set up by you or Raul to evaluate articles candidates and possibly eliminate all traces of off-wiki communication which could compromise the quality of articles being passed? This 'set team' could then be used to evaluate any other potential reviewers who wish to help out and know MOS, images etc. Clearly there are problems at FAC, I can see that myself sometimes. Rudget (Help?) 16:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Latter half of which statement, who is SK, and FAC has FAR: FAC mistakes can be fixed via FAR, but RfA mistakes have no fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant SG. Leaving it here now, this is slightly off-topic. Rudget (Help?) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, while I can appreciate the predicament you were in, I would have made a decision on how to proceed and stuck to it once the RFA was filed. However, you've explained your views and feelings here, are making amends, and I for one am content to accept your apology. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am speechless... but not as the result of any kind of emotional response here. I honestly don't care. I propose that before being allowed to nominate someone we all now must pass Wikipedia:Request for Right to Nominate. This goes for self-noms too, just to kill two birds with one stone. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I harbor no ill-will. But boy did this get out of hand. It was painful to watch. And my heart goes out to Dihydrogen Monoxide for having to suffer through the rollercoaster. You seemed more concerned about yourself and your reputation during this RfA than your coachee. I am sure you've reflected a lot on what transpired. Learn from what happened, and go forth. We all are learning our own lessons in this world. You are not alone :)

As I reflect on this RfA I'd like to offer up three considerations, not to you alone, but to the entire community.

Do not nominating someone you think is going to fail. That is unfair to the feelings of the nominee, and to the process; it also wastes the community's time. Do not set someone up for failure like that, especially in such a public forum. Having someone fail in front of their peers is not a useful teaching tool.

Also, a Coach consciously or unconsciously as a vested interest in the success of a coachee's RfA. There is also the potential that an RfA could become a referendum on the coach, not the coachee. Therefore, it might be healthy for an Admin Coach to let someone else make the coachee nomination and for the Admin Coach to be recused completely, or for the Admin Coach to make the nomination, and then let it ride without making anymore comments, fixes, tally adjustments, general maintenance, etc., unless answering a specific question directed at the Admin Coach. I'd prefer the former. Even if it isn't a Coach/Coachie situation, I really think nominators should refrain from general maintenance and tally adjustment edits.

Lastly, I suggest also that anticipation, speculation and celebration of tally milestones (i.e. "will this be at 200 tomorrow?") should be avoided (maybe at all costs). That makes it into an event, a contest.

See you in wikispace, always, Kingturtle (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, wouldn't it be better to just drop this subject altogether? All you're doing is engaging in self-flagellation, just as the community is starting its healing process. You Fucked Up™, anyone who saw your comments on your talk page knows that you know you Fucked Up™, and right now, all you're doing is adding fuel to a subsiding fire, which doesn't clear the air, it poisons it further. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm glad he's discussing this and should be commended for doing so. Your comments here and your edit summary are both not helpful, which is ironic as you're accusing BM of being anti helpful. Beam 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, we should all be glad. That's the thought process you've got when you blank your own RfA; hopefully, now that it's blanked, people will talk about it on WT:RFA for weeks! That'll help me live it down!--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad he's addressing this too, that is part of healing, not hiding things. I also have to agree with many of Kingturtle's comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who read the various discussions at the talk pages should have been well aware that this verbose explanation was coming, so I find it a tad silly and illogical to complain about it when it's suddenly made public. I respect Balloonman's apology and feel that it is sincere. That's all I need. Now, perhaps he (and the rest of us) can move past it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo most of what Wisdom says, although I will say that this post by Balloonman could be seen as unhelpful/unneeded. I also expected Bman to make such a post, and despite the fact that I don't think we really needed it, he wrote it in good faith and in good intention, and in wikipedia, I wont ask for more. I will continue to disagree with Bman that altering his nomination a few days in made any sense, or his belief that an oppose by him was really neccesary for the community to see. However, I admit that most of this was unchartered waters and to further lambaste him over what he saw as the best course of action doesn't make much sense. I would hope people would think twice before making any other threads like this under the thought that it will add to the "healing" process. For me, seeing Giggy back to his old usual self doing good work is all the healing I need, not more arguing on WT:RfA. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAG request: Bjweeks (BJ)

My request to join the BAG is here. BJ^Talk 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An alternative RfA approach

I just had an idea that might improve the whole RfA process somewhat. How about a 3 step process for achieving adminship:

1. A 2-3 day process in which a person puts forward their interests, and are compared against a standard set of requirements (e.g. 2000 edits, 6 months tenure, no warnings etc), during these 2-3 days people can voice only precise concerns, such as indiscretions on the part of the candidate.
2. If that time passes without a legitimate concern being raised, the candidate begins a one month trial period as an admin.
3. A 1 week period begins after the trial period with the community discussing how they did, where possible improvements could be made, and wither they should be allowed to retain their admin rights.

Its just an idea, feel free to propose alternatives to the steps or general idea as much as you like, but give it some thought, I recently read a comment likening the process to a Chinese water torcher, which sums up the negative vibe it has fairly well, and I could help but think it can't be improved. This way the admin decision can be made on actual admin activities rather than the hypotheticals that are often raised in the current RfA. I also feel that the minimum requirements I mentioned above can't be a bad idea.

One final thought, maybe we could have both practices and the candidate can select their preferred method. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can fail based on #1 alone. We've never been able to agree upon specific requirements for adminship; not only that, but such a process can be excessively negative (and be even more formidable than the current system). As for #2, who decides what a "legitimate" concern is? The bureaucrats? My own RfB experiences have shown that the community doesn't want us acting as the judge for every !vote. The trial period doesn't do much, either; if someone was going to bananas with the tools, all they have to do is keep their nose clean for a month and then they're in the clear. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A legitimate concern is vandalism or other such breaking of the policys, in otherwards anything not based on ones own opinion. Thats nothing to do with bureaucrats.

True, desiding a standard for application will be tuff, but also a onces off. How is the comparison of the number of edits an editor has made to an agreed standard negitave? Thats mathamatics. (Thats only an example requirement of course).

There not in the clear, I've never seen misuse of admin tools go unnoticed for long periods of time, admins are scrutinised more then anyone, the trial period is to show you know what your doing, not that your not a vandal. Showing weither your a vandal or not would be the job of step 1.☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be extraordinarily difficult to get through step 1. We've tried that multiple times before and we can never get a consensus as to the numbers. That's because there are a lot of other factors besides the quantitative edit count. Useight (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I totally agree, but if we can do this I think the trial period method would be so much more appropriate for admins to sign on ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the current process does a reasonable job of excluding vandals from adminship. The issues we should be looking at are much more complex than vandalism, edit counts, or # of talk-page warnings received. Admins don't get in trouble because they vandalize articles. They get in trouble because they make poor, hasty, or ill-considered decisions and then circle the wagons and react defensively when concerns about those decisions are raised. They get in trouble because they wheel-war first and discuss later, if at all. If we're going to improve the process, we should have a clear idea of what the problem behaviors are, and proceed from there to decide how we can pick up warning signs during the RfA. Practically every admin whom I consider unsuitable (no names) passed their RfA with flying colors. Often, even with hindsight, it's hard for me to pick up an indication of the problems which ensued. A trial period as an admin is not a bad idea, since the learning curve is so steep. In fact, most sensible admins realize this intuitively, and ease themselves in with relatively uncontroversial or straightforward actions before getting into thornier uses of the tools. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the trial period is the center point of my idea. Now to expand the point, the thing that I think is the problem with RfA's is that ones own opinion has to much of a place on the table, to follow my way, there would be no starting questions for the candidtates, instead people would bring concerns to the table, the candidate would then have first response on that concern, and then others would be allowed to voice there opinion. The good bit about that is that if the persons concern is to personal, or doesnt make much sence, the candidate can have there say, and then others could voice there opinion on weither the concern is worth much of the 'crats attention, because of that it would be so much more concensis based, and lets face it, the current one is a vote, in a big way. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing that's in the way to meaningfully fixing RFA is our weird attitude toward crats. We say RFA is not a vote, but then we want crats to treat it (almost) like a vote. We set a high bar for who can be a crat, and then we don't want them using their own judgement. If we were willing to trust the crats more we could probably skip RFA as we know it today. Friday (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I continue to self note that my method isnt perfect, thats one thing my proposed method fixes, none of those steps are votes, its basically, "the editor did this, which I think is a no-no to aquire/retain adminship/the trial" and then that point can be discussed. Perhaps the candidate should be entitled to first response on those now that I think of it, just so his/her own opinion is in the center of the discussion. Also that no-no they raise should be firmly based on reality, i.e. policy indescresions etc. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How would that make it any easier on the candidate (which you've suggested would be a good thing)? Currently, the RFA process doesn't really require much input from any candidate, if they so choose (I made 3 edits on my rfa). And yet you suggest that the candidate should be the first to respond to every piece of criticism. Plus, the three-step process with a trial run just means a longer spotlight will shine on a nominee, which I can't imagine being any easier on honest candidates. I think it's great that people think about rfa reforms, but you don't seem to address the concerns you yourself have about the process. - Bobet 12:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I said that the candidate should be entitled to first response, I don't recall saying they had to, my approach doesn't require any input from the candidate what so ever, they can go about there business for the entirety of the process, which to me indicates not only minimum stress for the candidate, but the candidate can be almost totally oblivious to the fact. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And like I said, the current process doesn't require any more input from the candidate, they could just accept a nomination and disappear for a week (not that it ever happens). The stress comes from the fact that people's perceived faults are brought into the spotlight, and it's hard for people to just ignore it. This suggestion would keep that spotlight on them for a lot longer, which would increase the stressful part. - Bobet 13:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perceived faults, where as mine only allows objections and supports that are based on exact instances (i.e. he broke this rule at this diff, or this was a particularly good call, etc). I've seen Opposes based entirely on what user name the editor choice, and other such extreme, and I use the word extreme in its most heavy sence, other such extreme nonsense as that, my approach does not allow for this. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For that, the problem isn't the process, it's the editors involved in the process, who presumably wouldn't change all that much. People aren't going to agree on what's extreme nonsense, and if they could, you could just fix the current process by telling people to only oppose based on serious issues, and I don't think the solution is that simple. - Bobet 13:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the current process, irrelevant of what is said about it, is a vote. I can go onto any of the 3 current RfA's and put:

# Support - I Love Cake ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That vote then immediately counts, and the content is only brought into view of the crat if the vote is a little on the close side. If enough people put that down, that RfA passes. My method is a discussion, it requires the crat to read it from start to finish, and promote the editor based on his impression of the editor at the end of reading it, therefore putting nonsense simply doesn't count for or against the candidate. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I should also point out that I'm perfectly OK with dropping the trial run. Although I think its a good idea its not vital, but reform is. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense issues have never been a deciding factor in rfas. If someone opposes based on a reason that everyone else thinks is nonsense, it's not going to affect the outcome of the rfa. If enough people agree with a reason, it stops being nonsense, even if a particular person might disagree with the definition. For supports, the reasoning has never really mattered much, since it's the default choice, and pretty much the only real reason for supporting is 'I believe the candidate will do more good than harm with the tools'. - Bobet 11:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkifying user count "stats"?

This is a little mind-blowingly trivial in (lack of) significance, but it might also be trivial to carry out, and at least marginally useful. A lot of the stats on the WT:RFA subpages are on a per-page basis: would it be helpful, if only to the idly curious, to linkify the pagenames? Especially for the non-mainspace pages, where the titles are listed in such a way to make the namespace qualification implicit, so it's not quite a matter of c'n'p into the searchbox. Alai (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the tool that generates the report links the articles, but it's quite slow. Thus, the plaintext copy&paste version on the RFA's talk page. I agree that links would be useful. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (another) RFA Proposal

I think we should get rid of the whole "voting" aspect of it. Yes, you should note that you support or oppose, but the decision should be made on the content of your statement not the oppose/support aspect. I know this is a simple thought, but the whole voting and percentage way of doing it seems to be the problem, at least as I see it. Beam 17:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the theory as to how it should be right now...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If they were formatted more like RFCs, where people could post views and others could endorse the views, this might help. Friday (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if RfC style RfAs would work so well. It has been tried before. Captain panda 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's how it's supposed to be now than why is there a count, and the whole 100,200,300 thing? If that's how it is now, than why the percentage of passing in the box? What a lie! Beam 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As the community of editors has grown, we've been unable to keep up on the job of installing clue in new editors. One effect we can see of this is the now very large emphasis on keeping score. Friday (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Even I would be a little more circumspect in my criticism than that Beam. Try to present your argument without any signs of inappropriate emotion. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have not shown any inappropiate emotion and recommend you read my comment again. If you insist there was inappropiate emotion, than read it again. Read until you see there was no inappropiate emotion. Than you won't have a need to say I was exhibiting such emotion, or even patronizing me by suggesting I try not to present it. You know, because it's not there! ;-) --Beam 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "lie" followed by an exclamation mark doesn't appear to me to be the paragon of disinterested discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is. Lies don't have to be emotionally charged when pointed out. Beam 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(About use of "lie") Actually, a lie is an untruth of some kind, but has, included in with it, some notion of intent (i.e., an untruth deliberately uttered.) That is why if one said that something an editor stated on here was a lie, one could be challenged about being uncivil, as it would imply an intention to utter an untruth, but if one merely said that something an editor stated on here was untrue, then I and many others certainly would not say it was being uncivil to state that. In the context of what was said here, the key issue is not the "emotionally charged" nature of the statement, but the included issues of intent (which make no mention of and carry no implication of emotion): it would seem to imply that there was some kind of intention to be inconsistent and/or misleading in the original criticism ("What a lie!"). I suggest 'this point is what Malleus was primarily concerned with.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Replace a lie with bullshit, or falsity, or untruthitude than. I for one can lie with no emotion involved, maybe it's a special trait of mine. ;) Beam 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And once again, it is nothing to do with emotion, but it is to do with intentions.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the 'crats treat it as voting. Enigma ^message 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. Consensus and voting are not the same. Andre (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

True, voting is straight up numbers, while consensus is a discussion. Useight (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Enigma was confusing the concepts of numerical voting and consensus, but was speaking realistically regarding how crats tend to view the process. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To a degree they do. However, we rarely get truly truly borderline cases. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And when we do get a borderline case, they always get it wrong... or, at least, I suspect that's what they'll tell you about people's comments to them---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is a votescussion isn't so much the problem as the fact that people think it needs to be spelled "!vote". The simple fact of the matter is that outside the technologically unfeasable, but otherwise obvious solution to the problem, demonstrating to the 'crats that you have the support of the community through numbers seems to work well. I think a great way to mitigate the voting aspect without changing any bit of the process would be to have the closing 'crat post a mandatory and lengthy explanation of why the RfA passed, or did not pass. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The poll in April showed continuing discontent with the RfA process, and I see a lot of discomfort in failed RfA's...but it might be because we're being overly-enthusiastic about flattening hierarchy, and squashing other proposed vetting processes that might take some of the load off RfA. That is, RfA is currently the only way to get a wide-ranging and thorough look by the community, for any purpose, which makes it impossible to tell how much of the drama is due to the RfA process, how much is relevant to adminship, and how much has nothing to do with either, but just gets dumped into this process because it doesn't have anywhere else to dump. GA reviewers are currently discussing reforms, and I've proposed that we add some form of vetting for GA reviewers...only because I think it might be helpful, but as a side benefit, I will be very interested in seeing if it winds up reducing tensions at RfA. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well fact is that the current system is making people shy away from trying to become admins. Yours truly inclusive. There's a lot of good editors out there who would make very good admins but don't want to go though the verbal gauntlet that RfA's currently are. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 11:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whatever changes are made to process, there will still be problems of perception. We all know the problem-- how to pass people who will do a good job and not pass those who would not. We still struggle with that. Any pre-requirement we implement will just make the process more elaborate for all and more difficult for nominees. The many arbitrary "you-name-it-itis" based opposes have not made the process better. They have merely made the process more daunting. I sometimes wonder if they cause potential candidates to strive for numbers instead of accuracy, and to strive toward filling in a resume instead of just enjoying what they do and grow into readiness. The interminable questioning is good as it helps the community get a better view, but it has got to be intimidating. Also, like everything else in a consensus-based decision, we all interpret the answers to questions in our own way. Editor reviews seemed a useful idea, but they are not always well done, sometimes the candidate ignores them, and again, they are interpreted differently. When we had a "standards page," at least candidates had some yardstick to measure themselves against, as inaccurate as it may have been. No way around it, regardless of process, we each need to carefully look at the candidates' contribs and talk pages and make our own decisions. We also need to be mindful of what others write after us. Sometimes someone will show me something that necessitates a change of "vote". I personally feel we need to ease up on the candidates a little and try to support unless they are clearly not ready. At any rate, I fear that any attempt at reform will merely make things worse instead of better. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one thing we struggle with is how to "scope" the discretion we give 'crats. I think it would be fair to say that most people want to give them some discretion, but given the criticism levelled at "ILIKEIT" promotion decisions in the past, not unlimited scope to second-guess the community's intent. My personal preference is that we try to make manifest what are the community expectations for adminship, and ask the BCs to judge whether people are opposing (or indeed, supporting) on a basis that's in line with those, as against the familiar menagerie of "my whimsical admin criteria". I would prefer that BCs not stray too far into "matters of fact": if someone is opposing on some commonly-accepted grounds, and seems to be doing so with some evidence, and in good faith, I would be very uncomfortable with their input being factored out because the closing BC had "investigated the matter and decided there's nothing to see here". Alai (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the current RFA process can be changed by any sort of community consensus, because there will likely never be any consensus to be had. Only an ARBCOM ruling would have any effect, and that's way beyond their bounds. —  scetoaux (T|C) 04:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Their 'bounds' are essentially what the community says they are, bear in mind. If a number of candidates stands in a "ticket" of reform, or indeed of more proactive management of community affairs, and is elected on that basis, it could be done on that basis. But that's not necessarily any easier than just coming to a supermajority-style "consensus" directly on RFA. Alai (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

Would anyone mind if i added RFA and RFB to the top tables?

It would look something like this

RFA

Username S O N S% Ending Duplicates? Report Tinkleheimer 11 5 0 69% 16 June 04:10 No Details Epbr123 130 2 1 98% 11 June 17:21 No Details Tanthalas39 71 6 2 92% 10 June 18:30 No Details Last updated 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) by Tangobot

RFB

Username S O N S% Ending Duplicates? Report Useight 16 10 0 62 13 June 21:42 Yes report AGK 2 43 17 7 72 11 June 22:52 No report Note: Not bot updated. Last updated 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply south (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind, but who will update the tally's as necessary? Rudget (Help?) 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for Tangobot Kevin (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tangobot isn't going to be updated to include RfBs. SQL's report had them both for awhile, but I guess he blanked it. Avruch^T * ^ER 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need a volunteer. Enigma ^message 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i've implemented it and updated the RfB. But i am possibly not volunteering Simply south (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the tally. Why isn't Tangobot going to be updated? –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the tally here for RfB was what it think was meant what was not going to be updated by the bot. Simply south (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The bold RfA approach

Reading the discussions here I can't help thinking it just spirals deeper and deeper into quicksand. Can I make an (extremely) bold suggestion? Make RfA semi-automatic. Any user with

• 25000+ edits and
• 2 years on Wikipedia and
• no warnings to speak of and
• no blocks and
• support from 2 existing admins

can apply for adminship if they wish. No further explanation or motivation necessary, meeting these conditions gives you the right to apply. The request is reviewed by a small group of admins/bureaucrats (3? 5?) and they decide. Their decision is final. If you're rejected you can try again in 6 months.

Yes, some people who have now made it through the RfA would not make it in this system. Or rather, not yet. So be it. We now have good editors who are shying away from RfA completely and I think that's worse. Furthermore this would stop (rumours about) canvassing, personal favouritism, etcetera. It's clean, it's clear, and I think it's equally fair to every candidate.  Channel ®   13:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "who are shying away from RfA completely" - Won't these standards exclude even more from the process? Rudget (Help?) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but they may have to wait a little longer. In my opinion 'not yet' is better than 'not at all'.  Channel ®   13:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not fair to me - I have less edits than that ;) Kevin (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the 19 successful candidates (so far) from May and June this year appear to meet all of those criteria, many of whom had well over 90% support. Guest9999 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with everything in this plan except for the 25,000 edit requirement, the 2 year requirement, and the no block/warning requirement. Beam 13:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

25,000 edits? Are you serious? Most admins probably don't have that many. That's a huge number. - Revolving Bugbear 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Most bots don't have that many, let alone admins :P. Some admins have been promoted with barely 2000 edits. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 14:05, June 8, 2008 (UTC)

It may be hard to believe now, but many current admins had fewer than 2000 edits when they were promoted, so it's not like "barely 2000 edits" is even an unusual case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, that's what I'm saying. Let's not focus too much on the details (make 25000+ perhaps 15000+, whatever) but what about the "semi-automatic" idea as such?  Channel ®   14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I became an admin with fewer than 10000. 25000 is a ridiculous amount to ask, even for a vandalfighter (who normally end up lots of edits); I do mostly technical changes, meaning that I don't gain edit count nearly as fast. Admins do more than one thing, and Wikipedia needs admins for several different reasons, and different types of admins are going to need different criteria. (For instance, if a prospective admin was applying purely because they felt they could help with technical fixes, I'd likely require MediaWiki talk-space edits; for a vandalfighter, that would be a crazy and arbitrary restriction.) --ais523 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of turning RfA into an M16.(if you play COD4 you'll get the joke) I think we do need a set criteria, maybe not as strict as you've outlined but pretty close, but we shouldn't take away the community's right to weigh in. These people are given quite a bit of privliges, and not everyone who meets that criteria will be trusted by the community to have those privliges.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 15:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not keen on the edit-count criterion. A Huggler could make 25000 edits in under a month but could take an editor who specialises in article expansion many, many years. This sounds like a rehashed perennial proposal that has been rejected many times – I wouldn't oppose a reform to RfA, removing the circus, voting and politics that go with it, but I doubt strongly that it would gain consensus, per the results of the latest adminship poll on the subject. EJF (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase 3 lines. The conditions would be n amount of edits, n years/months on Wikipedia, and support from n established admins. The rest as above.  Channel ®   15:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To KujiDude: I see your point about trust. Let's say the community can/should elect the 3 (5,7?) admins/bureacrats that decide on the applications. And they're up for re-election every year. Something like that would solve that problem, wouldn't it? And let's not forget "assume good faith". (PS: I don't even know what COD4 is)  Channel ®   15:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In COD4 Online Play, the M16 is the only Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle. Anyway, do you mean like, having an ArbCom for RfA to decide who gets adminship? I think the !voting for the ArbCommers would get just as bad as RfA, but I see where you're going.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 15:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)You can make it any amount of edits you want, it is still a bad idea. To take away the human element of the process is not a good idea, just because the user doesn't have any warnings doesn't mean that they are trusted by the community. I would also say it is at times difficult to discern what a warning is, just because something isn't a template doesn't mean some advise isn't a warning. And I understand that are saying that a select group would review the candidate for these issues, but why do so? Who is this group going to consist of? Is it going to be the same people every time? That would just lead to a more subjective, biased process. We shoot for transparency and this is not it. SorryGuy  Talk  17:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SorryGuy makes a good point. It'd be hard enough for the community to decide who these people would be, but then for the people to deal with every RfA... It'd be a huge workload. And just because someone has no warnings or no blocks doesn't mean they're not a jack-ass, or vice versa.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit count is an extremely crude measure, for all the well-known reason. Two years is also a very long time to wait. Bear in mind that we do actually need admins, it's not just a shiny badge to hand out to as many or as few as we feel like. Lastly, you can be sure that there would be huge wikidrama of the selection and subsequent actions of the "star chamber" doing the promotions. Are you proposing this as the only route to getting the bit, or as a "side-door", in addition to the current process? Alai (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Side door, has to be a side door - there's no way this could accumulate any support if it was the only method of getting +sysop. At least, I hope it wouldn't if it was the only way. Alex Muller 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a minimum edit count requirement encourage editcountitis? Isn't that something we try to discourage? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Besides, this is supposed to be a community exercise, not a parliamentary republic. - Revolving Bugbear 17:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had been been blocked for twenty-four hours after violating the fair-use policy half a year before my RfA, but not one of the fifty-seven who commented opposed me based on this. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, six months is now the ideal time period. I must say that automation would cut the "make friends with everyone to get them to support" ideology. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is supposed to vet whether the editor has the trust of the community. Maybe the fact that people go and make a lot of friends in anticipation for an RfA is a good thing, since it shows that they can assimilate themselves into the community? - Revolving Bugbear 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so because if that editor is really an asshole and let's say 10 people knew it and he goes out and makes 100 new friends prior to the RfA, than the tyranny of numbers will push that editor through. Even an asshole can lie and make friends for a couple of months. Beam 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I daresay even an extremely amiable person would have trouble making a hundred friends. The edit count idea is ludicrous - I've been an admin for nearly a half-year and I don't even have a fifth of 25,000 edits. Edit-count based criteria are also terrible in general - I would support without hesitation someone with only 1000 edits and plenty of quality article work. Well, as long as they didn't do something stupid such as replace the RFA page with "VANDALIZE VANDALIZE". (actually, now that I think of it, that would be an improvement upon the process) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This group of people who decide if you can set up an RFA is starting to look like a cabal. The requirements you mention above are also extraordinarily high. I don't have 25,000 edits, haven't been a Wikipedian for 2 years, and don't have a clean block log. Yet I've been an admin for 6 months. Did it involve making a bunch of friends and having them vote for me? No way. I only knew about two or three of my 70 supporters at the time (and one was my brother). But my point was the appearance of a cabal. Useight (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't support this idea, to avoid confusion... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[hits head on keyboard] Edit count, edit count, edit count. Do people actually read this thread before replying? I think this is the third time I'm saying the edit count mentioned above is just a number, n. It can be changed into whatever. 50, for all I care. (BTW, doesn't the current RfA says something about having at least a 1000 edits?). What I'm suggesting is a system, based on statistics, that would give everybody a fair chance. No risk of favouritism or canvassing, the same condition applies to all. But I'm repeating myself.  Channel ®   21:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you were just giving an arbitrary number, I read the thread. My point was not in regards to the exact number posted at the top, but instead regarding the cabal-ish nature of this proposal. Useight (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm concerned about is that there are some things that should be weighed up at an RfA that can't be related specifically to numbers - like whether the editor gets on well with others. Though I s'pose it's possible that the block log after two years might take care of that. Seems like a nice idea to automatically promote, but I can see some problem candidates slipping through at some point. Does anyone have an example of someone who could be promoted this way tomorrow? Alex Muller 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If I did, I'd nominate them here and now. Either that or they wouldn't want to become an admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A clean block log may perhaps carry a little more weight if all adminisrators actually understood the rules for blocking, and applied them equally fairly. As it is ... well it's a bit of a lottery as to who you happen to upset, and how honest they are. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised at the title of this section, as I see nothing bold here at all. Here's a bold suggestion for you: give every registered user administrator status rights (perhaps after some minimum period of time) and take it away if those administrator rights are ever abused. After all, it's supposed to be no big deal isn't it, so why make it a big deal? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's at least as worthy of consideration as any of the other schemes that have been suggested, and probably more worthy than many. On a slightly different tack, although an RfA is, as some have said, supposed to be about whether a candidate has the trust of the community, I am rather surprised that no real discussion of what it means to be trusted or not in this context is evident. Instead, we have dived into such things as edit counts, and so on, which, if at all, have only a tenuous connection with trust. Where are the behavioural markers for trust in any of the proposed requirements that have been supplied so far? And if they are not there, or are there only very indirectly, how could they be made more directly assessed? Perhaps that is also a bold suggestion: that an RfA process that is supposed to be partly about trust, actually has, as part of its review, an attempt to beef up its assessment of trust in some way.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To KujiDude: I don't think the workload for the "deciding committee" would have to be huge, depending on the exact conditions for application.

To Alai: Personally I'd prefer a system like (or similar to) this than the one we've got now. The current Circus RfA is extremely unfair and uses different measures per candidate. Some are asked 20 additional questions, others merely 3. Some are asked to jump the AGF Challenge hoops, others not.

To Alex Muller, DDStretch, Revolving Bugbear: I see the points about "getting on well with others" and trust. I think that the condition that n admins have to support the application would take care of that. I presume they would look into the candidates behaviour before agreeing to support him/her, just like they do with the current nominations.

To Alex Muller: I didn't suggest to "automatically promote", I suggested that meeting these conditions gives you the right to apply for adminship, should you wish to do so.

To Useight: Cabal? I don't think so. Not more than the current Board of Trustees (or similar) is. Besides, if this group changes every year it will never become a Fixed Power.

To Malleus Fatuarum, Beam: Please read the 'No big deal?' thread on Jimbo's talk page. It is now considered "a bigger deal than it used to be".

 Channel ®   23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head DDstretch. We have a process that claims to be assessing a candidate's trustworthiness, without any clear definition of what it means to be trusted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should I take any more seriously what Jimbo says now than I did what he said before? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me, you are the one who quoted him.  Channel ®   23:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit count

Ok, what exactly is the minimum? on my RfA they said at least 500, some say 1000 and then there's 2 and 3000. We really need consensus on this Sexy Sea Bassist 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review the relevant links of WP:RFA. This should contain all the answers to any FAQs you may have. Rudget (Help?) 17:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The new limit will be 25,000. See you in 25 years Jordan. :) Beam 18:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just goes up and up and up. When I started it was sort of ~2000 for a nearly certain chance it wouldn't be an issue, by the time I had my RfA it was 4000 or so. Now it is probably 8000 or so... Ridiculous. Prodego ^talk 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been inching up over time. I broke 6,000 during my early February RFA. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Limit, eh? So nobody can get adminship with more than 25,000 edits? Damn, I should use one of my socks from now on. --Rory096 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to see at least a couple pieces of featured content and 5,000 edits, or good overall content work and 9,000-10,000 edits, but that is just me. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a reiteration of an RfA Mechanism idea

I have seen this idea proposed a few times, mostly in passing, but proposed none the less.

How about if a user has a certain amount (100-500?) edits/ or at least 1 year (6mo?) of active Wiki'ng, with a limit of 3 blocks total, and the last 6 months clean, they receive the tools? If the person didn't meet these requirements but wanted them anyway than they go through an RfA process similar to the one we have now. Then if someone with these tools is found to be abusing them they would lose their tools for a minimum period of time (6mo, 1yr w/e).

No need for beuracrats or voting, until the person shows that the are untrustworthy. You know, an innocent until proven guilty type deal. If the tools are truly no big deal than this method of admin granting seems to be not only fair but seems to make sense. Beam 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there are a lot of other factors besides having a certain number of edits or time here. And I think you mean "3 blocks" instead of "3 bans", blocks and bans are different. My point is though, just because they have been around for an arbitrary amount of time or have racked up XXX number of edits doesn't necessarily mean they're ready for the tools. What about where those edits took place? Were any in admin-like areas? Do they know policy? Did they just use Huggle and rack up 1000 edits in 3 days? Your proposal, while a good one, also hinges on being able to remove the admin tools quickly and easily, and right now, that can't be done. Useight (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the 1000 edits in 3 days wouldn't give them the tools, we'd make it a time and post requirement, but very small. Yes, my idea would depend on the removal of tools quickly and by consensus. Basically we'd use the RfA process we have now, but it would be for removal. Beam 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So what you're proposing is creating a Request for De-Adminship (RFDA or something, in which community consensus desysops instead of ArbCom) and making it much easier for an editor to gain the tools. Is that kind of what you're going for? Useight (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Beam 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sadly, I think that you're right Useight. There is a not inconsiderable number of incompetent administrators IMO, but it would be easier to draw Excalibur from its rock than it would to get those few extra buttons out of their hands. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of sloppy and careless editors who don't get blocked would get the tools. There are many, many problems with this process. I wish it was this easy, but it can't be by human nature. Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not really like this idea, far to easy to game. And even if it were being considered, I'd say a year of activity, 15,000 edits, and 0 blocks would be my preferred rule set. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's still a bad idea... (I hate to use this example, but...) I'd be an admin now if we went by that, and clearly a lot of people (me included) think that wouldn't be the best idea. The current process is like democracy; it's the worst form of giving out adminship, except all the other ones. giggy _(:O) 02:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said (the part about worst but best idea). Malinaccier (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So you think Adminship is a big deal? Beam 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that MBisanz is implying that...Malinaccier (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your thought on what he's implying. I'd still want him to answer though. :) Beam 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bigger deal than it used to be. That has some good points and some bad points.

–Jimmy Wales ^[1]

is my answer. MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but unless he's coming here to help the conversation out than I don't care what he says. Post your own opinion if you want, but let other people speak for themselves. Beam 10:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit count is a terrible judge of who would make a good administrator and who wouldn't. There's users with >10,000 edits who I wouldn't want let near the tools, yet people with ~1000 who I think would make excellent administrators. When you consider the recent emphasis on biographies of living persons concerns, and how many contributors can be lost over one bad block, arbitrary amounts and automatic promotion is far worse than the current RfA system (and trust me, I'm not very pro-the current system, so that's not a statement I make lightly). Daniel (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather it simply be 6 months of a clean record with less than 3 blocks total, and a minimum of 1-2 years of editing with an active editing history (not necessarily many edits, just actively editing/contributing). I feel that people should be trusted until they show they aren't trust worthy. The current system makes admins like WikiGods. And really, it's not even the tools that give this impression it's the fact that the process to become and admin is given so much weight that as a result of that the admins are powerful. I think with less of a process to get them, the bigness of the deal would be reduced. Beam 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed yet, there are no standards because people have never been able to agree on them. You're free to oppose or support based on any arbitrary criterion you can come up with, just don't expect everyone else to follow suit. If you're interested, you can read through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-Z to find the standards that some other people have been using. - Bobet 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the more the idea that tools should just basically be auto given if you meet a certain set of criteria and taken away if you suck. That's what I'm getting at. Not the specific standards Bobet. Thanks. Beam 10:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at WP:ER

Maybe we should add one simple prerequisite to the RFA process. Require a preliminary ER, with feedback from at least X number of reviewers (x to be determined), before coming to RFA. Anyway, as there's no one new at RfA, I'll see how far I can get there. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been a backlog there for quite some time now. Some of those requests can be archived, though, so I'll take care of that. Useight (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there are now 45 remaining requests for review (and that's after I archived 15) so if anyone is ever bored, here's an option. Useight (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

and then, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tinkleheimer Dlohcierekim 04:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)