requests For Adminship/Archive 92

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

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

Question regarding wikiproject endorsements

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments13 people in discussion

She removed it form her talk page as "intrusive" here. I know this has been a common discussion, but I would like some other points of view on this, as I do not have strong feelings either way, however would like to engage in some constructive discourse over this concept. My concerns are based on the fact that I do not see how having a wikiproject endorsement is any different than a nomination from an editor who has worked with them, been around them, seen how they work, a nomination likley not based on merit? For that matter, multiple nominations from editors who have worked with them and are nominating based on experience with this editor, not merit? Does anybody else see the possible problem with the fact that forcing wikiproject endorsements will possibly weaken the process, by allowing the candidate to semi canvas, or get support from a project member who say, will support any rfa candidate not based on merit, but based on the fact that they asked or are listed as members in the same wiki project even though they may have never worked together. At what point would the line be drawn for an appropraite wikiproject endorsement (I.E., if a member of wikiprject x endorses every admin candidate, would there be a point where his endorsement would not count)? It is like some poor forms of parlimentry procedure I have been involved in where there is always somebody to offer a "second" no matter wht the motion is. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if there are reccomendations of a more appropraite place to strike up this discussion, i am all ears! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris,. I fear you are getting worked into a tizzy over nothing. At present, Kelly's opposition/neutral stances are not significantly affecting the workings of RFA, and her stated intention behind these mysterious actions is not one that should engender bad faith. Therefore, I encourage you to let this go; venue-shopping is not going to improve your understanding, merely confuse others when you bring it to these unrelated places. Commenters are presently allowed to state their opinions for, against, or neutral on any basis or indeed no basis at all, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. If you see it affect the outcome of a particular RFA, you may wish to bring it up there. -- nae'blis 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been some discussion here about the idea and plenty on Kelly's talk page. Many have tried to express that it's a bad idea and I, among many others, have pointed out to her to no avail that this is asking for a shrubbery since there is currently no way for such an endorsement to possibly exist without it being seen as canvassing. However, anyone who says that is being uncivil or, even worst, has a vested interest in seeing it fail. I also believe it is definitely a nuisance to have every other RfA candidate start a thread on their RfA about how they don't understand how they could have an endorsement from a WikiProject. In effect, Kelly is using RfA to promote her idea and I think it's a terrible way of proposing changes. Pascal.Tesson 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you pascal that it is a terrible way of opposing change. The question is, what should be done about it? This is something I feel strongly about, and why i have chosen to start addressing it. Above, there are several threads where I bring it up, but it gets "stomped" out like many other things brought up here. All I am asking is for a chance to have a discussion. Propose sides, have arguments, have a debate. Is that too much to ask? That is what i see as being much more of the wiki way then trying to immedaitly silence something. Please note, I have not gone after any editors specific behavior, isntead attempted to engagte in discourse with them about it (which was also stomped out). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, after following the above links to kelly martins post stating that there will be fear because there is much influence to be lost. First off, I have no fear over this, I activility participate and have the support of several wiki projects. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if this is the improper venue. Please understand, i especially in this situation, am not assuming bad faith, however wish to discuss the pros and cons of it. I think WP is becoming to much of a push it up, shoot it down, and not a discuss the things. If I were to go anywhere in my job with a new idea, I would have to be able to support it. If I supported it well enough, then it would be accepted, if i supported it poorly, it would probably be turned down. I am not horribly against her opposes. Please understand, I respect her opinions as far as I can without understanding them and have made multiple attempts to understand them, each time being shot down generally. I will admit, this is frustrating, however i still attempt to engage in discussion regarding this. Is there another place you see as more appropriate, or do you have any reccomendations on a better way to express my concerns? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if it seemed like I was shooting you down; I'm a semi-outside observer and it seemed to me that for whatever reasons, your points were not being communicated/understood well by others. Durin thought you were calling Kelly's objections gibberish, and Kelly is rejecting your comments as intrusive. And yet, other people are simultaneously trying to engage in dialogue with Kelly, help her understand the opposition to her stance, and come to some sort of equitable solution. So what I was saying, in a somewhat hamfisted way, was 'relax, Chris, and go work on something else if you like; enough concern has been raised that it is not required that you be the one to drive it, so you can stop beating your head against the wall'. Does that make more sense? Consensus and Wikipedia can be beautiful in that the ones to raise a concern do not always have to be the ones to see it to conclusion. -- nae'blis 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent description. I guess it appears to me I have fallen victim to questioning Color of the bikeshed, when I should really be working on building an encylopedia instead. Thanks for the insight, it is much appreciated! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a discussion to gather consensus on this matter on a subpage of this page. Funpika 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why a subpage rather than a section? Several people have tried opening subpages already (/Reform and /Factors I think), but it tends to fragment discussion. -- nae'blis 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the lead coordinator of a project and I think the projects have no business voting on RFAs, for one thing how would the "project" vote? Who and what process within the project would cast a vote?Rlevse 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nae'blis, the discussion will be in a section then. I will make it soon. Funpika 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much support for Kelly's idea. Since this is a wiki, there is no need to discuss ideas that have no support. Ideas without support just fade away on their own. If there was a move to enact Kelly's proposal, or if wikiprojects started having discussions about who to support, you could consider organizing some counter proposals or dissuading projects from participating. I think Kelly's idea is fundamentally flawed because it implies that wikiprojects have some sort of formalized way of making decisions. They do not. They are no different from anything else at Wikipedia, which works by consensus through discussion. I could see basing support on seeing a demonstration of being a productive part of a wikiproject, and/or having support from member(s) of that project. If Kelly wants to have criteria like that, that is her business. If she wants to formalize this in some fashion, it becomes everybody else's business. -- Samuel Wantman 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If she were opposing based on that, there might be some case of making a point, but all she's been doing is going neutral based on it, which doesn't affect the outcome anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that so many people are taking Kelly's criterion seriously. She's clearly come up with a fairly farcical criterion to illustrate the capriciousness of some of the "standards" that are foisted on candidates here ("not enough Portal edits" and so forth). --bainer (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well bainer, I have to say that Kelly was being so clear that her demanding of WikiProject endorsement was a "farcical criterion" that I had never even considered it as a possiblity until you suggested it just now. Potentially, the massive debates over this and affecting of RfAs may make this a WP:POINT case. I believe this kind of thing should be taken seriously. Also, when someone votes in an RfA, I assume that he or she is being serious and is behind the statements that are said by him or her. Captain panda 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite being a member of the endorsements WikiProject, I honestly do not have a problem with Kelly's voting criterion. We're not talking Masssiveego here, after all. Kelly is clearly delineating what she expects from a candidate. Whether this is in jest or not is not our concern. If she wishes to oppose a candidate based on certain novel criteria, we shouldn't be stopping her. In fact, given the current environment of RfA, we should be glad that not everyone is falling victim to groupthink and 'support per X's. Everybody talks about RfA reform, yet when someone actually does something, we all get worked up. Silly, very silly! :) – Riana ^ऋ 02:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if somebody started writing in every RfA "Neutral until the candidate has contacted at least 10 other editors that they have interacted with so that they participate in this RfA" we would have definitely find this highly disruptive and in effect, this is what Kelly is encouraging. Pascal.Tesson 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. However, I don't think people are that stupid, or intentionally disruptive. We're talking one user with a funny oppose here - admittedly one user with a fair bit of clout, but still one person. I haven't seen any bureaucrats refusing to promote on the basis of a single opposing stance, even if it's a very good stance. And it's patently obvious that the vast majority of people don't think this is a good enough reason to withhold support. I frankly think this is being given more attention than it deserves. – Riana ^ऋ 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Riana ... I don't think we need to make a big deal about one editor's ... eccentricity. :) Besides, I think Kelly Martin's free to use any criterion she wants, even if it is to require that candidates see the world in Wiki source code ... a bit like in The Matrix. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you remind me of Masssiveego. What did he do again? It was so long ago... —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pile-on agreement to put an end to this overlong reaction. –Pomte 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Stopgap measure?

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments13 people in discussion

Seeing that the RfA formatting wars have spilled to live RfAs, let me propose an emergency "rule" of sorts: Don't reformat or otherwise edit the format (remove tallies, support/oppose/neutral sections, etc) of live RfAs without the explicit consent of the candidate represented by the live RfA. Comments on this welcomed. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

People shouldn't do this anyway, really. -Amarkov moo! 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't, but they do it anyway, hence needing some sort of glaring message telling them not to. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe even the most ardent supporters of experimentation accept that as common courtesy. But of course, I also believe that if a candidate wishes to, say, agree to remove the tally, that shouldn't be held against him or her. (provided of course, that this is done at or near the start of the RfA and not 5 days into it) Pascal.Tesson 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think all experimentation should be carried out by the candidate themselves, but who listens to me? If I were on RfA again, goodness knows what I'd have done to change it. Probably require each commentator to write a small limerick about how good I'd be with the tools. – Riana ^ऋ 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Well, it's one thing if the candidate agrees, and agreed that shouldn't be held against them. But it would be highly disruptive and inappropriate to jump in and change the format around without the candidate's approval, and given how touchy some people can be at RfAs, a candidate may be hesitant to vocally object. They should be asked, and if the answer is "no thanks, I'd rather do it the regular way", that should be the end of the conversation. Even if by some miracle a consensus were reached tomorrow as to changing the format, candidates already running when that consensus is reached should be given the option of changing or not, and the change made definitively only for future ones. (Lucky you're not going through again, Riana, I certainly wouldn't publicize any limerick I happen to come up with.) :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I believe one should only experiment with one's own RfA because the process is stressful enough. I had a fairly easy time of it, and I was pretty darn nervous throughout. To change the requests of people who are not very sure is unnecessarily nerve-wracking. After all, we're trying to make this process easier for people, not worse. And Seraphimblade, e-mail is open for all limericks, sonnets, haikus and nursery rhymes :) – Riana ^ऋ 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You thought yours was stressful? You only had two opposes! I faced six opposes with much less supports than you, and I thought I would face highway dispute-related trolling (I was involved in that dispute). Ok, I'll stop complaining. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, that's kinda my point. If someone going through an easy request is slightly stressed, someone going through an request which is not going so well is not going to enjoy seeing their RfA pop up on their watchlists, only to see something as dumb as the numbering being changed to bullets, or the tally being changed into cuneiform. – Riana ^ऋ 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

With a slight modification, the final tally for your RfA would have been: (10000111/10/0). 10000111₂ supports! Maybe we should make that modification to future RfAs ... you know, just to cause some panic and chaos. ;)-- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what wouldn't I give for some chaos? – Riana ^ऋ 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"There are 10 types of people in the world: people who know binary, and people who don't." bibliomaniac 1 5 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's only 2, you moron! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The next 2 types involve people who want RFA to be easier and people who want more stupid reasons to oppose. Wait...we only have 4 so far. Funpika 10:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your username should be User:Bibliomaniac1111. I'm not going to bother fixing your timestamp into a binary format for you.-gadfium 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(<--indent) I agree wholeheartedly with this proposal; it was starting to feel like Russian roulette. - auburnpilot talk 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I perfectly agree. Reformatting existing RfAs won't do any good. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's end this silliness

Latest comment: 16 years ago70 comments25 people in discussion

Hey there fellows! I haven't been active on WT:RFA for some months, because quite frankly, it's silly. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and here we all are devoting hours upon hours of our time debating/discussing/arguing about it. As such, I believe I have a solution to this problem. Much as Radiant! was able to solve (sort of, hehe) the problem at WP:AFD by creating the proposed deletion system, I've created a "proposed adminship" system, the beginning of which can be seen here. You'll be able to see this as soon as you click on that link, but I'd like to mention my complete ignorance of templates and how they work in advance, hehe. Basically, anyone that wants to be an admin or wants to nominate someone can just throw that tag on their userpage, and there'll be a link to a discussion page. If there are no serious objections on that subpage, then the bureaucrat can hit "makesysop" after seven days. The template will add a category, so we'll all have a main point of reference to see who wants buttons. Hope this helps, and please feel free to fix the template, as I really have no idea what I'm doing in that respect :) Cheers fellows gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That actually seems like quite a good idea to me. Matthew 09:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it! am I right in saying, that if the prod template is removed, users can still run via the normal RfA procedure? Ryan Postlethwaite 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We have spent several megabytes of discussion trying to figure out what "no serious objections" means... do you know what a serious objection is? Kusma (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kusma, true enough, mate, and the fault is my own for using unclear language. A serious objection is something that a Wikipedian in good standing cites as a reason why the candidate cannot be trusted with buttons. This objection is always made in good faith, keeping the safety of the community at the forefront of his mind (An example could be a user who has been blocked many times for POV-pushing and would be likely to use "protect" to prevent others from attempting to keep the article NPOV). And Ryan, sure, that's why there's a subpage for discussion if necessary! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mean a process that would remove load from RfA for unanimous nominations? That's certainly an interesting idea (I take it a nom statement would be given along with the template). I assume the instructions would be to only remove the template if they would oppose an RfA on the candidate, and that the template can't be re-added unless the removal was clearly in bad faith or by a banned user (so pretty much any 'objection' sinks it, but people who would be 'neutral' in the present system leave the template up). Several noms are unanimous at the moment, so this would remove load from RfA; however, I just don't see why this is needed (RfA doesn't exactly have a load problem in my opinion, although arguably this system would focus people's effort on the contentious cases, and it's the contentious cases that RfA reform's meant to address, as it's assumed uncontroversial candidates will pass under just about any system). --ais523 09:32, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

Exactly, the template would be removed if there was a serious good faith objection (which would have to be stated somewhere, probably on this subpage on on the user's talk page). This is not to solve a load problem, but the general feeling that RFA is full of instruction creep and has become this all-important thing (there's even been edit wars and arguments over the format of RfA lately, let alone all the argumements about the process itself). I'd rather stay away from the semantics at the moment, however, if that's OK (if not, no worries) and focus on the idea. If people like the idea, the details can get sorted easily enough. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If your system really allows any editor in good standing to object by removing the template, it will be worth trying. Simplifying the adminship process is an excellent thing to try. Kusma (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If this system went ahead, it's something the 'crats would have to agree with, their job is to promote candidate per consensus of the community. Would this really mean that a true consensus is gained? Ryan Postlethwaite 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unanimous consensus from everyone who has seen the nomination; why shouldn't that be at least as good as (some measure of) consensus of 30 people who have discussed about whether the candidate's edit summary usage is high enough? Kusma (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Looks good to me. I'm sure no one would object to restoration if the template were removed, say, by a vandal that the candidate had just warned. The only problem I see would be if an editor that, in effect, no one knows or cares about placed that and then just didn't edit at all for a week. Perhaps a category could be added by that template, so that those interested could have a look through current candidates? I think that would solve that type of issue. Other than that, I love the idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A category would have to be created, and you can be sure that if this went live, somebody would have a bot up in a day or two creating a pretty table with the current candidacies. I don't think it would be much harder for editors to scan and keep track of than RFA is. --kingboyk 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Ryan) Well, if community consensus is "Yes, this is a good idea, we want people promoted based on this", there's your consensus. I think that's about the best consensus possible-a consensus of those who interact with the user, for good or for bad. Also, if we add a category, as I suggested above, anyone interested can still look through and review candidates. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this isn't a bad idea, and you've got the safeguard of the crats using their discretion and not letting nutters through to game the system. Why not? Moreschi ^Talk 09:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I do agree, but when people are able to comment, it allows all views to be put across. I have a worry, that some people may have multiple minor faults, but user's don't think they should remove the tag, because their concern is very minor, however, added together, the community may decide that the candidate should not be an administrator - in this system, these multiple minor faults may all get discredited. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple minor faults? That's no reason why someone shouldn't be an admin. Everyone has multiple minor faults, and if you don't your're Essjay. Moreschi ^Talk 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has multiple minor faults, but these should be disclosed during an RfA procedure so the community can decide if these merit opposition or not. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens, an idea that might actually make RfA easier?! What on Earth... :) It's great. I quite like it. – Riana ^ऋ 10:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a fly in the ointment, particularly because I love the idea, but I have a potential problem with this. It means that either one would have to watchlist all users (which is clearly daft) or (presumably) a Cat that pulled all of these candidates together. However, I envisage that Cat could rapidly become extremely large, making it difficult for good faith editors to screen the candidates to ensure that anyone untrustworthy isn't listed. That would, in turn, place the onus on the bureaucrats to check out each candidate, which is beyond their terms of reference. I can see this idea as a vandals' field day, for reasons I won't spell out. --Dweller 10:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe make it so only admins can apply this template? Moreschi ^Talk 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Well, crats aren't bots. It's much the same as with prod-it requires at least one set of eyes besides the person who placed the prod, the admin who reviews it. If that admin thinks deletion is inappropriate, they can dispute the prod, just like anyone could. It would be the same here-the crat who reviews at the end could easily say "I dispute this editor becoming an admin, they've only made ten edits, and the nine besides putting this template up were vandalism." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't need any extra power, plus, many resular users can spot a good candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is directly to Seraphimblade (hi, by the way!), but just in general, I was planning on having the template add a category (I think there's an admin-candidacy thing at the bottom of that page), so everyone could view CAT:ADMIN or whatever at their leisure. Given my stated template deficiency, this might not have been clear, hehe. And the userpage could easily be semi-protected for the duration to prevent any sort of vandal silliness. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I was just suggesting one potential way to stop abuse. It's not a bad idea: it would stop abuse and give us and very regular supply of good candidates. And anyway, who says admins don't need more power? Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 10:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The system has a built-in measure against gaming it in order to become an admin because the bureaucrat reviewing the user after a week can decide to remove the template, acting as just another user instead of as bureaucrat, just like an admin not deleting an expired prod. Kusma (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, that's putting a lot of onus on crats. They need to do a full examination of the history of every candidate nominated but not opposed. That could be a lot of candidates. That's unfair on the crats, and beyond the terms of reference for which they were appointed. By comparison, closing a prod is easy.--Dweller 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, why not make more crats? We can fix the crazy RfB system, that no one can pass, at the same time! Wonderful! And no, the crats don't need to check the full candidate history. They just need to check that they aren't batshit insane, won't block Jimbo, won't delete the main page, and hasn't told anyone to FUCK OFF via edit summart recently. Moreschi ^Talk 11:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And if the bureaucrat is unsure about what to do, he can always start a RFA on the user instead of promoting, just like an admin deciding to AFD an article whose PROD has expired. Kusma (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Make more bureaucrats? What kind of crazy idea is that? You act like RfB is working :-p --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And has nobody heard of User:Mackensen/Proposed adminship? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:proa}}? =P - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this and heartily support merging it with my own proposal (thanks Deskana!) Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a wet blanket, but if I PROD an article and nobody notices, and it gets deleted, people have recourse to get that article back. If a person is proposed an admin, then passes because nobody who might have cared noticed, then we do not have any recourse. Should we have 2 types of admins, one that clearly has the community supported, and another type that just got in?

I know many of you think people cannot just "slip" past, but it happens with prods all the time. Besides, I hardly call an uncontested prod a consensus. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, there will be a category that will be able to be watchlisted and viewed for forthcoming requests. Also, while the idea is derived from Radiant's solution to the AfD problem, it's not meant to be taken that literally, hehe :) Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would so enjoy PRODding people... :-D --Kim Bruning 14:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how "nobody doing anything about a template" constitutes a consensus that we trust a person. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? There'll be a category, watched by bots no doubt. Furthermore, the number of people in this category will be far, far lower than the number of articles in CAT:PROD. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting proposal to be sure, but I have one question: how do we prevent the type of situation where the category is populated by 150 people and no one has either the time or the inclination to review each one of those candidates? I think a significant drawback of this method is that people will stop really evaluating candidates (i.e., checking edit histories) and will just make quick, uninformed summary judgments. One more thing. WP:PROD was created because AfD was being overwhelmed. RfA is certainly not in the same boat. Also, just look here ... we currently have 15 active candidacies, of which 12-13 will succeed! I think Radiant's proposal for RfA is the best solution ... nominate more good admin candidates. It doesn't require hundreds of KB of discussion, major changes, new processes, or anything of the like. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still up to the bureaucrat to promote. If you read through my proposal, there's strict control over the nomination procedure, which would prevent flooding. This is simply a mechanism for allowing uncontroversial admin candidates through. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was commenting in response to Gaillimh, but I might as well reply to your proposal as well. I read it and saw no control mechanism whatsoever ... thousands of editors pass the three requirements. I particularly dislike the statement that "An administrator or editor in good standing is permitted one objection every three months." Why? How is it justified? Just because there are two controversial candidates in one 3-month period doesn't make one or the other any more "uncontroversial". Uncontroversial admin candidates already are allowed through without much hassle. 11 of the 15 currently active RfAs have few or no opposers. I see no reason to create a separate process. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  - I fail to see how built-in limitations to both nomination and opposition does not qualify as a control mechanism and I'd ask you to explain that one to me. This is meant to limit what one might call "marginal" opposes. That is, anyone who subscribes to 1FA could just go through and remove every template from every user who didn't meet that standard. In fact, we've had people in the past whose behavior at RFA mimics that example. Since this is a one-objection fail-and-go-to-RFA it does not seem unreasonable to limit someone's ability to object. For one thing, it encourages you to save that objection from someone who is, in your view, truly unfit. You don't have to be the one person to oppose every time. If someone has few or no opposers why are we bothering with this great clanking machinery? Let's simplify and be done with it. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    - It's reasonable to think assume that there will be many more users applying for adminship: this is a good thing! Sure, there will be backlogs at times, but that's no big deal gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      - Mackensen, I seem to have partly misunderstood your proposal. I'd mistakenly though that the process allowed individuals to propose themselves and others as many times as they would like. Regarding the "single oppose per 3 months" rule, I still think that's flawed. If I oppose someone who I think will block Jimbo, restricting me from opposing someone who'll just randomly block a few users doesn't make sense. If a candidate is opposed, promotion is obviously no longer "uncontroversial". Lawyering around that by creating restrictions doesn't change the fact of the matter. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      - Gaillimh, more candidates is a good thing, but at some point, it becomes impossible to evaluate or process them all. The purpose of these proposals is to produce more admins ... well, right now we have 19 active nominations, most of which are almost certain to succeed. I really don't see the need for a separate process with less oversight. If you find editors who are uncontroversial admin candidates, nominate them at RfA! What's the need for a separate process? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        I agree that clear statements of support from the community, as opposed to a lack of statements to the contrary, lend validity to the process. There's no load problem on this page. The only way this proposal can produce more administrators is by reducing the visibility of nominations, and that increases risk. The response above is that editors will patrol the category, but if people peruse the category as much as they peruse this page, it doesn't reduce overall load either, leaving us with more processes to run through for no net gain. I don't see any pluses here. Dekimasu よ! 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        How many admin proposals would probably succeed? The fact that it can all go down the drain with ANY oppose not made by abusive users, even something like [1] makes me worried. Funpika 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, you fellows seem to missing the point. If someone removes the template, thereby objecting to the candidate's having buttons, then he/she will simply go through the standard RfA, possibly a shorter length of time (much like prodded articles are sent to AfD). Also, there's nothing to say that people can't lend their support on the subpage if they feel so inclined. Also, it's not impossible to evaluate all the candidates; quite to the contrary, in fact. Why bother with the silliness of RfA when we can just simplify things and de-emphasise adminship? Change isn't scary, hehe; it's a sign of progress. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't address my point. If people are also lending support, this is basically creating a decentralized RfA process, moving it out of the Wikipedia space, and creating a situation in which any nomination is derailed by one oppose. Assuming that people treat those nominations with as much scrutiny as the current RfAs, the proposal will create more work instead of simplifying things; even a vast majority of successful RfAs draw at least one oppose. Is it really helpful for Kelly Martin to deprod Mallanox and send him to RfA, rather than just have him pass RfA 50-1? (Not to imply that Kelly Martin doesn't have the right to oppose.)

As far as I can tell, the only thing the proposal really de-emphasizes is the importance of the candidate's statement and questions 1, 2, and 3. However, we recently saw that several users refused to support a candidate who wouldn't answer the optional RfA questions. That would seem to indicate that many users find them an important part of the process in becoming an admin. Writing that statement and answering those questions requires the candidate to show who s/he is to the Wikipedia community. We've seen evidence recently that people don't like admin accounts without that sort of paper trail, no offense intended. Dekimasu よ! 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we try this out? I have a candidate in mind, if it doesn't work out, I'll take it to the current process. I really believe it's worth a try. If there's a cat, candidates that shouldn't be admins are going to get shot down straight away. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would want to work out the kinks first. I like the idea in theory, but the way it is put "on paper" just makes me nervous. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, certainly agree, I'll take a look at the workings of it tomorrow. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you intend to implement it (reply tomorrow, if you'd like)? We can't just go ahead with this if only those 50-100 editors who have this talk page watchlisted know about it. Participation in RfAs may be dominated by a small group of editors, but at least Wiki: Requests for adminship is a long-standing page that a lot of people know about, even if they don't participate. Also, I don't think we should keep trying radical experiments in the absence of consensus to do so. Administrators are constantly the subject of accusations by vandals, trolls, and POV pushers. To quote Dekimasu, they should have "clear statements of support from the community, as opposed to a lack of statements to the contrary". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Summarize it and take it to Village pump (proposals) where it will get more exposure. (I think it is a good idea by the way). John Reaves (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal has merit too, but I agree that it would need a fair amount of publicity to be judged a proper test. Is there any way to put a notice about it on the main RFA page? Might also want to notify the bureaucrats to see if any of them have objections or suggestions. JavaTenor 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is implemented, even as a test, please remove the criterion that an editor may oppose only once every 3 months ... if this is truly to be for cases of uncontroversial adminship, people should be able to oppose multiple times. If you wish, make the requirement stricter (i.e., in order to successfully contest a proposed adminship, two editors whose first edit was at least X days ago, where X is between 7 and 30, must oppose). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It'd be good to have the actual template in working order, a category set up, and a reference page (we can just edit WP:RFA, I suppose, or create a new page (WP:PROA?) and link it to WP:RFA. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or just make a list of usernames at the top of WP:RFA, just like RFB is at the bottom. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no way this is ready for prime time yet. Unlike the experimental formats, this is a fundamental change in how consensus to promote is determined. Any candidate likely to pass under a no-serious-challenges system will fly through RFA, so what are we really gaining? I have to agree that if you know people who will pass easily, nominate them! -- nae'blis 17:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They fly even faster with no serious opposition system ;-) I say go for it! --Kim Bruning 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It changes the emphasis from yes/no to why-not? And I can't see any great danger - anyone contentious will be brought to RfA anyway. But, can we have something similar for de-admining? ;-) Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nae'blis. This only creates more work for us when such a large percentage of RfAs draw at least one opposing voice. I said this in the section above, but I didn't receive a reply there. Dekimasu よ! 03:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the non-reply (if it was me you were looking for one from, hehe). With regards to your comment directly above about creating more work, it actually saves a lot of work and process wonkery by simplifying the process and de-emphasising the importance of adminship (after all, it's no big deal). If the prod / proa is contested, then it can simply be placed on RfA. There will already be a subpage attached to the proa, so it'll be easy to 'transclude' it, if I'm using the right word there. Also, Mr. Aveling, I hope to propose some sort of simple de-admin process similar to this in the future, but feel free to take the reigns on that one, haha gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do we allow self nom prods? Ben Aveling 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this really like prod?

Because part of the reason why PROD is accepted is that even after the article has been deleted, a dispute will immediately reverse the decision. Are people going to be able to protest after the week expires and have adminship revoked? -Amarkov moo! 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly; the perils of conversing in such a format I suppose :). If someone removes the template, the subpage can just be sent to RFA much like articles that were denied deletion are sent to AfD. Conversely, if no one removes the template, and the bureaucrat hits makesysop, it's reasonable to assume that people who know the fellow have seen it (having his/her userpage watchlisted) and the people who like to poke about RfA have seen it too (because they will be watching the category). That is, there will have been enough saturation. Of course, one can hit "desysop" just as easily as "makesysop", and I believe the waiting time for this is around seventeen minutes. There's also ArbCom, RfC, and all that other stuff for seeking adminship revoked (if this works though, I'll try to come up with a suggestion for a streamlined way to do that too, haha) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that prod decisions can be overturned at any point, without discussion, even after the article is deleted. I don't believe that the process would be accepted otherwise. So, can people sysopped through this process be desysopped, without discussion, even after the waiting period is over? -Amarkov moo! 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not in any way as simple as you seem to think. For one, most watchlists are too long to keep track of every user you've ever interacted with (most of the time, I do so on other talk pages, not theirs), and a single 'format change' to their userpage after posting the template will obscure the posting. I don't even read userpages on my watchlist, and usually I'm viewing by namespaces (Main, Talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia_talk). Decentralization is not the answer here unfortunately, unless a similarly streamlined/decentralized desysoping process is implemented. And there's been significant resistance to that in the not-so-recent past. -- nae'blis 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I had planned for there to be a category for people to watchlist for people who like to participate in the admin process ("RfA regulars" as they seem to be colloquially known). That is, the PROA template will automatically place a user in the category, which can be monitored by parties interested in the process. Knowing little about categories and templates, I'm not exactly sure of the specifics, but I know it can be done with relative ease. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why this won't work

Simply put, PROD works because a significant number of AFD nominations are unanimous. PROA won't work because the vast majority of RFA noms aren't. >Radiant< 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but at least it would be able to quickly, and more efficiently, pass the really obvious cases, such as that of The Rambling Man, which is currently 120/0/0. Surely this wouldn't need the debate etc. it goes through. And any decrease in the number of RfA debates must be seen as a good thing (that IS the purpose of this proposal). This proposal has my wholehearted support. ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Current system

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments14 people in discussion

It seems a faux pas on a level with saying "I enjoy torturing small animals" to say that one actually finds merit in the current system for RfA.

Yes, it has its flaws, but I think that mostly the good candidates are being promoted and the weak ones are generally weeded out. Borderline decisions either way come along now and then, but those who are promoted have generally not done much that's controversial and those who've not can always run again.

I think that Kelly Martin, in her inimitable style, is prompting some serious thinking... and one upshot may be to tweak how the Bureaucrats might weigh users' opinions when establishing consensus.

It could be the opposite of rose-tinted lenses, but it seems to me that when I first became involved in WP, I think that RfA was more aggressive than it is now, with more unchallenged opposes based on invalid reasoning. Perhaps that's why we're getting more clear-cut RfAs these days - Tangobot's currently tracking 13 RfAs and (based just on !vote counting, which is of course fraught, but nonetheless...) all but one of them are currently showing a pretty clear consensus one way or the other.

Anyway, I think that RfA in its current state is doing a reasonable, imperfect job. I have faith in the Bureaucrats to be sensible in their decisions. I also perceive that the system is evolving.

I now stand back and pull on the asbestos long-johns I prepared earlier. --Dweller 10:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with what your saying, the system seams to be promoting the right candidates, whilst weeding out the poorer ones. I really don't agree the current system is broken, yes people object to it, but it's clear that people are going to object to any system which people offer. I guess what I'm trying to say is - maybe it's better we stick with what we've got, and try and tweak it to perfection! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen. It's the worst systen except for all the others.AKAF 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My ceterum censeo is that the simplest way to fix most concrete problems with RfA is to lower the promotion threshold to 66%. Kusma (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it'll be immediately improved by (a) bureaucrats feeling free to ignore irrelevant objections (b) contributors eventually realising that irrelevant objections will be ignored, and it's not just a numerical count or one-moron-one-vote. I'd also like to see more towards ridiculous objections to new bureaucrats being ignored, particularly those trying to enforce one-moron-one-vote on RFA via bureaucrat votes. No, every opinion is not beautiful and wonderful and to be taken seriously - David Gerard 11:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard, this is the second time I've noted that you are being extremely disrespectful toward other users. The first time you accused an admin of slander because he criticised someone's attitude and now you're calling opposers "morons". Please remain civil. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

David, where do you draw the line between "it is a ridiculous objection" and "I disagree with it"? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of this thread - and it's welcome AFAIC - is to step back and ask "is RFA really broken?". "What's broken about it?". These are important questions that should be asked before trying to mend anything; as such, let's discuss only those questions in this thread and leave possible remedies to the myriad of other threads on this page :) --kingboyk 11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Imho it's RFB which is broken. The site is growing exponentially, we've had several well qualified candidates for bureacratship, but we just can't get anybody promoted. --kingboyk 11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either system is broken. It's just some people have standards/requirements that are restricting good candidates. RfB is an almost impossible task, not because it's broken but its voters have very high standards, it's probably easier to go to meta and become a steward. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it somewhat puzzling that you don't think a process is broken when it's easier to become a bureaucrat and get the ability to demote people too on ALL Wikipedias (steward) than it is to get JUST the bureaucrat abilities on simply one Wiki English. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the people voting are the ones who need to change, not the system. I think we may have a differing understanding of "system". I meant only the code, the RfB template and the what it is used for (candidate makes a statement, answers questions, people vote). The only thing that is preventing people passing is the voting; I think people's standards are too high and/or they have ridiculous criteria for a bureaucrat, not that the RfB template needs to be changed. We can't alter people's reasons for voting just by changing the format of RfB, so I don't think it's "broken". I agree that it is too hard and I hope that some people will change their voting habits having read this thread. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite instructive that the one current RfA that's neither nor in terms of showing !vote consensus has an unusual element to it... and that if it does fail, the same candidate running again in a couple of months should sail through, assuming he doesn't overnight start doing daft things. --Dweller 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller about RfA working, good admins get by others do not. If nobody was complaining that would be a sign it is broken. If you fail, heed the advice you were given, wait a few months and try again, people are very forgiving of faults from a persons first RfA that did not follow after it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The system is obviously working; the question is whether it is producing sufficient numbers of new administrators. The increase of workload per admin over the last years seems to indicate that the number of promotions should increase faster than it does. Most of the recent remedies for "fixing RfA" do not seem to be directly related to this problem. Kusma (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue of producing sufficient numbers of admins can be quite easily resolved if those who think the current system produces too few admins nominate more candidates instead of spending days trying to change the system. I mean no offense to anyone by this, but am just pointing out that these types of actions are inefficient and counterproductive to the very goal of having more qualified admins. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need more admins, just current admins actually doing the backlogs, I clear the TUP backlog and am keeping it clear. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. We must proceed from the assumption that present administrators are doing as much as they are willing to do. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but if the backlogs were causing a problem outside of RfA debates then someone would do something about it. But the only time I hear of the backlog crisis is in RfA debates. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment regarding Kusma's proposal. The priority shoudn't be on lowering the standards because we need more admins. Although I'll concede that RfA might be rejecting perfectly sound candidates, I think the first priority should be making sure that sound candidates do apply. There is ample evidence that people that would become fine admins are not interested in facing the grueling process itself and reformating the RfAs or lowering the magic number to 66% won't prevent that. What we need our ways to change the culture of RfA, not its facade. Pascal.Tesson 16:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Pascal, David and similar lines of thought. What is "broken" is the culture of RfAs. To me, what is broken is that standards have been replaced by metrics. This is like a call center, shipping or other industries where metrics are treated more valuably than actual quality measurement. Things have moved away from questions of whether a candidate has a clue, understands the rules, works well with others and similar measures. There are an inordinate amount of oppose and support !votes (the former more obviously than the latter) which are apparently based upon nothing more than an arbritrary metric. What is telling to me about the culture of RfA is that more people have gotten their knickers in a twist over Kelly Martin being Neutral and requesting a WikiProject endorsement than over people demanding a 4000-edit bar. You don't have to agree with Ms. Martin's request (I sure as a hell don't), but I find her requirement a world more valid than demands for raw metrics. At least her request directly relates to someone's participation in the community and ability to work well with others. The plain numbers don't provide any qualitative measure. Some people grasp in the first 500 edits what others will never understand and metrics are not going to reveal that capacity. Vassyana 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Does requiring good rationales for opposing stop people from opposing for bad reasons?

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments11 people in discussion

I am having serious doubts about this. Oh, requiring good and valid rationales will stop people from presenting bad reasons, but if you are hell-bent on opposing someone, I think that will be really easy. Something along the line of one of these rationales will always work:

Oppose. The candidate does not have sufficient experience on deletion discussions for me to trust his ability to handle the deletion tool properly.
Oppose. The candidate spends too much time on deletion discussions, and not enough time writing articles which I think is an absolute necessity for a candidate to understand the purpose of Wiki English... it is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum.
Oppose. Has not significantly contributed to making really great or featured articles, and I think that kind of experience is essential for an administrator.
Oppose. Writing good and featured articles is great, but they are not activities which are related to, or require admin tools.
Oppose. I think this candidate is too likely to speedy delete items which do not meet the speedy delete criteria.
Oppose. I think this candidate is a process wonk who will let junk remain just because it doesn't fit the exact letter of CSD.
Oppose. The candidate refused to answer my question on whether he would delete items which are obvious deletes, yet don't meet the CSD criteria.

All of these look like reasonable arguments (if you think they don't, then that is beside the point, drumming up something wrong, even for the best of us, is always possible), and they effectively mask the fact that the real reason for opposing is "Oppose, reported me to AN/3RR and I had only reverted six times!" Any comments? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Finding out the reasons for an oppose vote requires mind-reading capabilities of the bureaucrats (hey, I just found another criterion to make RFB harder to pass). If we start to openly discount votes, we just ask people to misrepresent their reasons. Kusma (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Could be, but it seems most RfAs are succeeding at the moment, suggesting that it's not just Bureaucrats - the other contributors to RfA are also largely wise enough to sense a bad oppose and ignore it. --Dweller 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki: Requests for adminship/Factors is a survey that aims to gather some broad opinions on what factors are important to the community when considering candidates and why they are important. The discussion so far has identified some factors which most people consider to be important, some factors which are good indicators of other important factors but not necessarily important by themselves, and other factors which are not widely regarded as being important at all. --bainer (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether requiring people to give a reason to oppose makes them automatically give good reasons is a question of a class known as a straw man argument. But if someone gives his reasons for opposing it's easier to work out whether he's opposing for a bad reason. For instance, recently a lot of editors gave a candidate's past performance as an employee of the foundation as a reason to oppose. Their opposition was correctly discounted. This was helpful in deciding community consensus on the question at hand, which was: is this editor suited to be administrator? --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a yes or no question, do you trust the person. If your reason for not trusting somebody will not be accepted by the community, one that will can always be thought up. Since there are no actual criteria other than "I trust this person to mop", then we cannot simply dismiss arguments that don't meet the criteria like we do on AfD. Of course, as Tony points out, if the person does not know better to pick something that appears valid, they can still be discounted. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So why don't we have some clear criteria already? --Kim Bruning 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What, isn't trust enough? I don't see why we should change something that major when the system is not really broken, it will just make things worse. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This shows the essential problem with RFA as it stands: it encourages bad faith actions. If the phenomenon Sjakkalle describes becomes routine, there will indeed be no option but to nuke RFA from orbit. And not by a decision on WT:RFA either - David Gerard 13:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If by encourage you mean allow human nature to continue, then ya. But I think any system will let people act any way they want. I still think people are seeing a problem where the is not one. If you want to be an admin, you need to be able to take criticism, even baseless criticism. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're almost saying that having baseless criticism on RfA is a good thing... Let's keep in mind that baseless criticism is always a bad thing and we should make every effort to minimize it. Making potential admins thicker-skinned is not an objective of RfA, nor should it be and while every RfA participant is entitled to their own views on a candidate, it should be made clear whenever possible that retaliation, collusion and other forms of trolling are not welcome. Pascal.Tesson 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "retaliation" has to be used sparingly; "Oppose, this user wanted me blocked for no good reason" is definitely reasonable if it was decided that there was no good reason. -Amarkov moo! 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not. Forcing people to use only "approved" rationales in their comments is in effect forcing them to lie. >Radiant< 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Letting everyone try their hand at 'cratting

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

At the moment, there is no general consensus on what criteria should be needed for someone to become an admin. (This isn't surprising, nor is it necessarily a bad thing.) The current system has people doing something remarkably like voting, according to their own adminship criteria, some of which will be very low and some of which will be almost impossible to pass. At the same time, there are problems with discussion-based and consensus-based systems being very hard to close in a sensible way, and even with voting-like systems there are debates about what the threshold should be, which votes should be discounted, etc.. No matter how a crat closes an RfA, there's going to be controversy in such cases. Therefore, why not determine the RfA closing criteria the same way as RfA 'voting' criteria? The idea is that users may not agree on whether a candidate should be promoted (this usually happens), but they're much more likely to agree on how to close an RfA. I can well imagine a user going

Discussion / Voting / whatever about the candidate

Support no obvious problems Example User 13:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussion

Do not promote Oppose percentage is too high to oppose this candidate. Example User 13:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(I think it's entirely likely that the situation where people 'closed' the RfA counter to their beliefs about the candidate would come up quite a lot.)

This way, some people can choose to promote at 66% and some can choose to promote at 80% and some can ignore the percentage entirely and just base their opinions on how strong they feel the arguments made in the nomination are. In nearly all cases, I expect that the promote/do not promote decision would be pretty clear (in other words, I imagine there would be an obvious consensus about whether to promote or not that 'crats can do pretty much mechanically, just doing things like ignoring sockpuppets). This proposal could be applied to the current format, either of the recent experimental formats, or WP:DFA without much trouble. (Before anyone complains that this would be instruction creep, I'd like to point out that it should be quite a simple method of reducing creep by not needing a 'magic promote percentage' or whatever.) Any thoughts on this? --ais523 13:44, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

Sounds like another RfA after the first RfA. How often is the decision of a 'crat really an issue anyways? I think they do a fine job. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if we have another straw poll following that to determine if the consensus regarding consensus to promote is accurate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, maybe also perhaps some sort of wax seal why not? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Does more discussion and consensus really mean a better RfA process?

Latest comment: 17 years ago46 comments13 people in discussion

Question What is the purpose of an RfA? Is it (a) to predict which RfA candidates are likely to make successful admins efficiently, or (b) to hold an engaging discussion? Which would Wikipedians prefer, a process able to quickly predict admin success without any discussion at all, or a process involving extensive discussion that's ultimately inconclusive, hard to interpret, or fails to predict admin success accurately? Why exactly is there this need to have discussion? Is discussion desired because it helps us choose good admins and build an encyclopedia, or is discussion desired because there's this rule that says we're supposed to discuss things? If discussion and consensus are being advocated for their own sake and will make things worse, it's time to ask if this is really helping us or maybe its time to take a look at WP:IAR. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current system is somewhat of a hybrid between the two. There's the general !voting in support of or opposition to a candidate, and then various points are discussed or addressed via the questions and points brought up in the discussion. Perhaps if we encouraged people to be more descriptive when making their !vote, we might get more discussion? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

False dichotomy. In first instance we need a reliable method for checking if someone is suited to being an admin. Preferably fast and automatic. Unfortunately our current system has several people who don't know how to use it well. More discussion would allow users who already have experience to pass that experience on.

So at the end of the day, you find yourself adjusting how the system works as a balance between discussion and speed.

Right now I think we have been running "too lean" for quite a while, and need to focus more on discussion to compensate.

For some reason people keep missing the following point, so I shall repeat it: One thing we can do to encourage discussion is to discourage "vote-and-run". Preferably we strike out confirmed vote-and-runs.

--Kim Bruning 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (for more discussion, see: WP:BN)

I've been getting the impression that many recent RfAs have been having larger comments than usual, and more of them, when people !vote. Perhaps my impression is wrong, but it seems that way to me. If this is the case, I think it's a good thing. I think people should give a reason behind their !vote, whether support, oppose, or neutral. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

\o/ --Kim Bruning 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A vote-and-run is the situation where someone drops an opinion on a page, and then doesn't come back. (Typically because they assume RFA is a vote, perhaps?)

You can't catch all vote and runs, but you can be certain you are dealing with a vote and run when:

A leaves an opinion
- B challenges that opinion

...and there is no answer back from A by the end of the RFA.

We can then reasonably assume that A has abandoned that opinion, in the sense that they haven't taken the time to defend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs)

This seems to be descriptively inaccurate: users are not currently expected to engage in any sort of dialogue beyond their initial comment. Some check back; most do not. This is not taken to mean that the opinion is "abandoned". We can begin to talk like that once we have cultivated the expectation (a very healthy one, I think) that a user must address reasonable challenges to his opinion. Until that point, we can hardly invalidate such votes; please in any case do no striking out, which is highly irritating. — Dan | talk 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

People are certainly expected to (hello... consensus forming process? ;-) ), just perversely not required to. With this tweak, they're still not required to do so, scarily enough, but if others really have issues, then folks would now have to actually enter a discussion when requested. That would be an improvement.

Striking out is irritating? Indeed it is. The whole point with threatening to do something irritating is to encourage people to take action to prevent that from happening, eh? ;-) Note that in this case, broken opinions don't get stricken until closing, which should keep collateral irritations relatively low.

--Kim Bruning 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Note that RFA is not a vote. I understand the expectations problem. That's exactly the problem we're trying to solve. Chicken or egg. If you can't take measures to change expectations without first changing expectations, you're in a bit of a bind :-P

So if a person !votes in an RfA, you expect them to check back periodically to see if somebody has challenged their position, but you don't expect a candidate to answer the most basic of questions when submitting to RfA? I think we have our priorities mixed up here. If you'd like clarification on a point somebody has made, request clarification on that person's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

!vote? Expect what? I don't expect what else? Huh?

Well whatever the case, I refuse to be banished to talk pages. I want to call my peers out, and ask them to defend their position in public among all the other peers; just as I have my arguments prepared, when they ask the same of me. That's part of what a consensus process is, and that's what RFA still is - in name, at least. Let's make sure it is a consensus process in fact. --Kim Bruning 19:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you shouldn't be allowed to bring it up on the RfA, I just meant you could always drop a note on the editor's talk page saying "I've requested clarification on the comment you left on WP:RfA/user". Certainly I would expect the response (or at a minimum a link to the response) to be posted below the comment on the RfA. - auburnpilot talk 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh hmm. . Well ah yes. Ahem. ^^;;;

...At any rate, some people don't respond to such notes, or respond in an agressive way. That and it would be nice to make it easier to do this kind of thing directly on RFA itself as well. :-) --Kim Bruning 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest responding on the RFA itself and copying the response to the user. If the user does not continue the dialogue, make a note to that effect on the RFA, and the bureaucrat can evaluate it accordingly. Striking the comment is entirely unnecessary, and a glance at any major Wikipedia controversy will prove that being deliberately irritating solves no problems. Playing Socrates is a fun conceit, but around here it is almost always counterproductive. — Dan | talk 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we're miscommunicating. My proposal is that at the end of an RFA -that is, when the fat lady sings-, not before the end, and not after the end, but precisely at the end of an RFA ;-) The Bureaucrat strikes through those opinions which have gone challenged but unanswered, to indicate that (s)he is not counting those opinions towards the final outcome. This is a very simple thing to do, but would possibly have very useful results. See also: an earlier discussion on contested opinions --Kim Bruning 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As before, I must oppose the idea of striking what you term "hit-and-run votes". I will present five reasons:

First, most "oppose" opinions, which is what this proposal intends to target, provide some explanation of why they're opposing. Any challenge to such opinions may be met with a repetition of the same argument or just a simple "see above".
Second, the reasoning of "(1) A leaves an opinion, (2) B challenges that opinion, (3) A does not respond to that challenge, and therefore (4) A has abandoned that opinion" is not necessarily accurate. Maybe A is busy in real life. Maybe A thinks the challenge is so idiotic it doesn't merit a response.
Third, this system can produce undesirable results. Imagine the following scenario: 100 people comment in an RfA, 85 supporting and 15 opposing. One or more people from both sides proceed to challenge every single opinion (not an unlikely scenario). Only 20 people respond: 10 supporters, 10 opposers. The bureaucrat does not promote due to insufficient support.
Fourth, this system will make RfA substantially more antagonistic. Instead of encouraging discussion, I think it will simply encourage an endless series of challenges, responses, counter-challenges, expressions of indignation that someone challenges a 20-sentence detailed comment, accusations of WP:POINT, and so on.
Fifth, it is contrary to the very goal it wishes to promote. If we desire to see more discussion in RfAs, we should not place the emphasis on discounting the opinions of fellow editors with whom we disagree. That is, we can't want to encourage discussion, yet at the same time try to ignore certain portions of it.

-- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(replies indented) --Kim Bruning 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(likewise) -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(relikewise) --Kim Bruning 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

("Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.") -- Anonymous Coward :-)

'twas the word I sought, but alas, did not chance upon before. Thank you! :-D --Kim Bruning 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(doubleplussamewise) -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I, too, oppose the striking of unanswered objections. One of the great weaknesses of the wiki-process is that often it is not the editor that has right on his or her side who prevails, but the editor who cares more and just wears the opposition down until they move onto something they find more rewarding. In RFA, I sometimes support and sometimes oppose. Is it really too much to ask that bureaucrats merely assume that I've considered the matter fully and offered my best opinion in good faith? (Oh, I don't intend to watch this thread closely. Just because I don't answer some reponse to this post doesn't mean that it's not my opinion.) Bucketsofg 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, it is too much to ask, yes. This is not a vote-and-run. It is a discussion.

The information you have at the start of a discussion is -almost by definition- likely to be much less than the information you have at the end of the discussion. While discussing you exchange views and learn more about the candidates, which allow you to fine tune your views. In the end this hopefully leads to consensus among all concerned.

If people don't want to participate in discussion to form consensus, they should not be here. --Kim Bruning 21:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced. Consensus assumes that people have a chance to share their opinions in the way they choose and defend them, amend them, change them, or leave them as they see fit. When a bureaucrat tries to determine the consensus at the end of an RFA, or when an admin does so at the end of an AFD (etc.), he should not discount opinions that are given in good faith. Bucketsofg 21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

An opinion can be given in good faith, but due to the large amount of people joining and leaving wikipedia on any given day, we can't be sure if someone has already learned about how consensus works, and might be assuming we are using voting. This is one quick way to catch that. If you know other simple methods, I'm all ears :-) --Kim Bruning 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe Kim's idea is a good one. ~~Voters~~RfA participants should not be in the position of being able to make a statement about a candidate's suitability and vanish; they should be prepared to back up their comments with something more substantial (in a civil way). Perhaps if we rephrase it as discussion rather than a challenge the worries about antagonism will diminish? Polite discussion is key. Poor behavior on the part of either the candidate or the commenter will do a lot to inform other readers over whether they either make a good candidate or a believable commenter, respectively. If discussion seems to be going on too long, anyone (and I mean anyone) should be able to step in and ask the two persons involved to agree to disagree. The points raised up until that moment will still be of use to bureaucrats. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Asking people to explain well their oppose votes and to reply to challenges, and to stick around after they vote, are very good ideas. Making this mandatory however will just cause more trouble than what it's worth. Striking out an oppose vote just because the opposer was not there to reply to challenges makes no sense to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez folks, if a person makes an opinion, and a flaw is pointed out, and the flaw is not addressed the 'crat is going to see that, they are a bright group. Person A "Oppose, candidate smokes crack", Person B "What are you basing this off of?", no response... I think the 'crat can figure it out(even in less obvious cases hehe). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So 'crat ignores on closing, but does not mark or leave feedback that (s)he is ignoring in any way whatsoever? --Kim Bruning 14:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to think/believe (on faith?) that bureaucrats on closing an RfA discounted votes for a variety of reasons (be they support or oppose). I also thought it wise that closed RfAs did not indicate which votes had been discounted because the resulting debates would have made the Nanking Massacre look like a tea party. Now, it's become very apparent that bureaucrats lock-step with voting and do not ignore any votes, except in a very small number of extreme cases (Carnildo, Danny, and 2-3 others). --Durin 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

*Nod* It would be bad for accountability if bureaucrats didn't mark. So I'm not sure that telling bureaucrats to ignore opinions which are likely bad based on objective criteria, and then telling them to be quiet about it... is a good idea at all. Feedback is important --Kim Bruning 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the problem's that there aren't actually any rules anywhere (as far as I know; if they exist and someone could point me to them, that would be great) to say which way a 'crat should close an RfA. This might be deemed to be a good thing (I wouldn't mind a system on which 'crats closed at their own discretion), but in such a case I'd expect the 'crat in question to explain their reasoning. Is the current RfA system a straight vote in which the closing 'crat has a discretion range of 75%-80%, after discounting obvious invalid votes (such as vandalism and duplicates)? I don't know, and I'm not sure if anyone else does either; that would seem to be broadly what the system is, but there have been exceptions in the past. Does WP:IAR apply to RfA? I would hope so; in a system this controversial they're bound to be situations which aren't covered by The Rules or in which the rules give a confusing/irrelevant answer. If it was clear just what the current RfA system is, maybe it would help to sort out the problem. (Feedback on what's happening is a good thing; the presumption given the lack of feedback would be that the rules are being followed, but which rules?) The problem is striking a balance between over-specific rules about how to close an RfA that don't allow flexibility for unusual situations (and we've certainly had a few of those in the last few months!), and a situation where an RfA is closed according to the personal rules preferences of the first 'crat who happens to come across it. (I notice my suggestion #Letting everyone try their hand at 'cratting drew unfavourable comments; the criticism makes sense, to some extent, but it drew my attention to try to figure out what system it was that I was trying to replace.) My personal preference on this issue at the moment is that there should be relatively few rules and a lot of explanation as to what the 'crats are doing when they close an RfA, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. --ais523 15:06, 27 April 2007 (U T C)

There are various guides as to what bureaucrats generally do. I tend to regard the instructions to bureaucrats at WP:BCRAT as being the most important minimum standard for closing an RfA. As you will note, these are very brief. Warofdreams talk 15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Determine whether there is a consensus that the person should be sysopped using the traditional rules of thumb and [the bureaucrat's] best judgement." Well, it makes sense, and it's a good starting point, even if it so vague. --ais523 16:01, 27 April 2007 (U T C)

An additional problem with Kim's proposal (which I like on the face of it, because it parallels several real-world consensus techniques) is that a blanket series of 'challenges' 5 minutes before the RFA closes can throw the consensus into disarray. But how far out from close is 'too close'? Probably more legalistic and unhelpful than we like, but I do wish to encourage b'crats to exercise the judgment we trust them to use, in discounting (and marking/commenting as such) those 'votes' which are not helping build consensus. -- nae'blis 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In cases where the "vote" is close, the 'crats are more likely to take the value of the "vote" into account. But 90% of RfAs are clear cut. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a very simple solution? As noted, 90% of RfAs are clear-cut, and in these cases discussion doesn't really add value -- it doesn't help produce a better (or different) result. In the small minority of cases where either someone has posted a significant objection that other editors didn't have an opportunity to respond to, and perhaps also in cases where the vote is very close, suggest that the bureaucrat relist the RfA and state the reasons for doing so, so the community will have an opportunity to revisit the matter with the new informaton and make a more informed decision. Suggest this would address the issue of uninformed voting where it counts (and only there) with minimal change to our current process and with minimal demands placed on the community, while retaining within the community (and not the closing bureaucrat)the main power to decide and to make judgment calls. Bureacrats can doubtless be trusted to know when the matter is clear-cut and when to relist. Relisting should only be permitted once (no consensus if not resolved then). Best, --Shirahadasha 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of curiousity.

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Is there any particular reason the template for RfA doesn't include a summary of the user's block history?

Wouldn't it make sense for the nomination code to generate

Exampleuser (talk • contribs • blocks) - YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER

Instead of:

Exampleuser (talk • contribs) - YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER

I only bring this up due to the current Nima Baghaei RfA, in which User:Nima Baghaei has had two blocks in the previous week for WP:3RR. It got me thinking about the RfA format.

Would there be a serious objection to changing the current template to reflect a user's blocks? It's certainly relevant to the discussion of a user's merits, especially if they've got a history of Vandalism. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about changing this once, but decided against it because I thought it might serve to bias users from the start against a candidate without actually evaluating the circumstances of the block. For example, lets say someone was blocked two weeks ago, for an hour, for "disruption." The block eventually turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, but since the blockee was, oh, logged off, it wasn't challenged and the block ran its course. It would be incredibly to say "'''Oppose''' blocked just two weeks ago. ~~~~"; as the above sections highlights, even if this oppose is challenged, the opposer might pull a "vote-and-run," never coming back to apologize for their mistake and engage in a more thoughtful evaluation. So I think that providing a quick block log link risks knee-jerk opposes; the log is only one click away anyways, via contribs. Picaroon 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon practically took the words right out of my mouth. A valid concern, but I don't think it's a big enough problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes that much of a difference anyways. If a candidate has been blocked (even not so recently) somebody will bring in up within the first few hours. As for the "vote-and-run" problem, its importance is overstated. For one thing, in a case of mistaken identity, a great majority of people will reconsider if asked nicely on their talk page. Pascal.Tesson 22:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As the first opposer, I probably should have gone beyond looking at the user's contribs and user page, and clicked "block log". It's more likely I would have done that if the link was there on the RfA. But, per Pascal.Tesson, somebody did point it out quite quickly and no harm done. --kingboyk 13:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Using userlinks rather than user (as in ais523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) gives most of the userful links for assessing someone for adminship, but the 'block user' link does seem somewhat out of place. {{Usercheck}} (which produces · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)) would be even more useful (although the 'rfa' link on it would always be a selflink except during RfB requests, and a link to the second-most-recent would be more useful still); I wonder how many people actually check for an RFC or SSP about a user before voting on an adminship request? (I'd suggest leaving the {{user}} template where it ism for format niceness and to avoid confusing Mathbot, and to use usercheck in the 'general comments' section by default.) --ais523 13:41, 27 April 2007 (U T C)

Adding the link up there will arguably cause people to make kneejerk reactions to candidates that have been blocked at least once. Not good. >Radiant< 12:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A statistical quirk

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There was a point last week, during Matt Britt's first RFA, where only five or six RFAs were active. Now there are 21. Any reason for the sharp surge in interest? Maybe some of them were inspired by Robdurbar the Rouge? :) Or maybe the scary format of Matt Britt's experiment scared away all the admin hopefuls until the storm washed over. YechielMan 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA numbers seem to go in waves, with a period of about 3 months. IIRC, there was a big spike back in January too. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this week's article in Signpost regarding RfA reform put the idea adminship in the minds of more users than usual. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be interesting to see, the promotion rate through these waves. ^Khukri 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing an RfA

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

How would i close an RfA? Does doing the edit count of the user count as being involved in their nominatio, in this case? Simply south 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, only bureaucrats close RFAs. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

However, it says users may if the candidate does not really have a chance in succeeding. Simply south 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That was in general. It depends on how you look at WP:SNOW. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Without going into specifics of a case, I would leave it upto the 'crats. If however, you are positive that a candidate has failed an RfA, put {{subst:rfaf}} at the top, and {{subst:rfab}} at the bottom. Then inform the user. Generally speaking, the user should have requested that their RfA be closed for you to do this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. See Wiki: Bureaucrats#Instructions_for_sysoping_someone. --Durin 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You should also archive the RFA among the unsuccessful requests (see link in the RFA template up top). I've closed two RFAs, one by user request, and one where the count was something like (1/20/2) so I snowballed it. My general rule for snowballing RFAs without the user's consent is that oppose votes must outnumber (non-moral) support votes by more than 10 to 1, such that it would be embarrassing for the nominee for the debacle to continue. YechielMan 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Trial Adminship

Latest comment: 17 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

I'm bringing this proposal up again. Why shouldn't any editor, with lets say 3,000 edits and 6 months (can be changed), be sysopped for around a week, and perform around 20 deletes, 20 protects, and 20 blocks. If they do something wrong, they can be reverted easily. During trial adminship, they shouldn't participate in anything controversial. After a week, either they stay sysopped, or if 5 people object to their actions, they have to go through an RFA. (during the actual RFA, they can either remain sysopped or can be desyssoped during it. It's annoying to get opposes because people don't think you'll use the tools right. Trial adminship shows them you can. How this helps RFA:

It eliminates the need to vote unless people object after the trial.
It gets rid of "won't use the tools right" and not experienced enough opposes. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- But it does not solve what you think it does. If I have a concern with how someone will use admin tools, it's rarely that they will do the obvious things incorrectly, it's that they will do the more complicated things incorrectly. Nobody would actually do something that could be controversial in their trial period, so I have very little new evidence that they are experienced enough. -Amarkov moo! 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that I very much think this might cause is some Wikipedian to kiss up during the week and then cause a massive wheel war. I know that they can easily be desysopped, but prevention is the best medicine. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you propose any checks before they get the mop for a week? This has a serious potential to go wrong - someone can cause extreme disruption within 5 minutes of getting the tools, e.g. delete the main page, put very rascist comments on - it's a train wreck waiting to happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, about 3,000 edits (not to userpage) and 6 months. I think someone can be trusted if they've done that. And if you want, the approval of one admin. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to oppose this proposal...again. Either the community trusts the user with the tools, or the community doesn't. It's that simple. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if RFA was as simple as that, we wouldn't have this problem. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What problem? No, this is a serious question: what problem? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That RFA needs changing, and shouldn't be a vote. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then trial adminship won't solve anything. The trial admin can be oh-so-friendly for one week, and then start abusing the tools after the "threshold" has been crossed. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And then be desysopped so easily. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is where some psychology comes into play. It is easier to confer something desirable than to take it away. What will happen to a good faith editor, undergoing this trial, who just isn't up for the tools? How will you explain to him/her that the tools must be revoked? Desysopping is technically easily (click a button and it's gone), but the aftereffects are dramatic. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say something along the lines of how you say someone's RFA has failed. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

But they are fundamentally different. Failing an RfA is similar to failing a job interview. Failing trial adminship is akin to getting fired from a temporary job, after you have conferred benefits like insurance, etc. Of course, I gave a situation in oversimplified terms, but only to show that there is a difference. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought behind this proposal, but I also have to agree that it would be easy for an editor to play things "by the book" for just a week or so and then go wild once permanent adminship was conferred. And desysopping, at least at the moment and probably evermore, really is a big deal and requires a time-consuming process. So routine "trial adminship" on request for editors of a certain seniority is not going to fly. I can see the value of a sort of trial or probationary adminship in certain other situations (e.g. borderline RfA results or special cases a la what was done with Carnildo's resysopping), but this is never going to be written into the RfA procedures or become a common practice. Newyorkbrad 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Here's an idea. I forget which, but I know there's a Wikipedia that you can adminship on with only 2/3 support. What if anyone with over 2/3 support, but is under the promotion threshold, is given trial adminship. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that and had written something very similar into my last reply, but then I thought of objections to the idea, and responses to the objections, and replies to responses to the objections, and decided not to type it all up because it was threatening to turn into one of my habitual filibusters. (I asked someone once if they had seen my comment on Mackensen's RfB, and he replied "yes, I read your book." So I have to keep my comments shorter.) Suffice it to say that I don't think this proposal would be likely to be adopted either, although it does have some merits (and is analogous to what actually did happen after the last Carnildo RfA). Newyorkbrad 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure RFB needs to be fixed also. That is, so it becomes humanly possible to pass. (Maybe I should check what other species make up admins, at that page of admins by species that I can't seem to remember the title of. You showed it to me once.) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RfB doesn't really need to be fixed ... unless we ever want to elect another bureaucrat ever again. :) I'm on record as saying that it may be literally impossible for any user to pass RfB right now, because there are questions that can't be answered without losing more than 10-15% of the !voters. Having said that, perhaps I will have to play guinea pig and try it myself sometime. Whoops, guinea pig—there's another species for you. (The page you are looking for is User:Radiant!/Classification of admins.) Newyorkbrad 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the passing threshold for RfB? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote, and we don't count, and all that. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, the figures I've most often seen mentioned are 90% and 85%. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So essentially, it is a percentage that in the current stormy climate of RfA politics almost no one can surmount? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe that no one has had a successful RfB since I've been active on Wikipedia, which is 10 months now, and it's not as if there have only been weak candidates. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And if I remember right, a b'crat said recently that the vote counters are nice in helping to determine an outcome of an RFA. So yes, RFA is vote. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. RfA is a unique mixture of both vote and discussion. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. Discussion is often actively discouraged, in the form of people complaining about hounding of opposes and what not. Further, any mention of weighing some votes less than others sends a subset of the population here into a frenzy. No, RfA in current form is a pretty strict vote system. You can change your vote, but it is a vote nonetheless. --Durin 03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the fault of the system, but of the editors. Unless you say that the fault of the system is that it allows such "forbid debate" mentality, which is an entirely different story. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RfB figure is 90%, though WP:GRFA says 85%. 90% was agreed upon a long time ago. 85% was put into WP:GRFA by User:Voice of All in September of 2006

[2] without any discussion either at Wiki talk:Guide to requests for adminship, here on this page (would have been archived in Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 68) or at WP:BN. Not that I want the standards to be higher (I actually find the 90 vs. 85 debate to be meaningless; we're after consensus, not votes), but I'm changing WP:GRFA back to the 90 figure because it was never discussed. If we're going to change figures like that, we could just as well change RfA to 50% without discussion (that'd work for me, it being a straight vote system, but I digress...) --Durin 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have found our solution to RFB. Since no human can possibly pass RFA, we must nominate Alphachimp! :) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Our critics would say we already have hundreds of inhuman admins and bureaucrats. Among the actual bureaucrats we already have Infrogmation, Kingturtle, and Tim Starling. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's come up before, but I've just run across the process by which 'custodians' (technically equivalent to admins here) are created on Wikiversity. It's an interesting process, which involves mentorship, probationary use of privileges, and community approval. It would probably be worthwhile to see how things work (and work out) over there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Note

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wiki: Village_pump_(proposals)#Senior_Editor. Opinion? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted there. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 12:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet's promotion

Discussion moved to the bureaucrat noticeboard.

This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Archive 92, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.