Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

1000th Admin

With all this talk of the RFA process being broken, or needing revision, or needing less rubbish on the top, an important (or at least fun) milestone is creeping up on us: Wikipedia will soon have 1,000 Administrators on the English-language edition: there are 988, as of today.

For those of you who aren't already admins, this might be an interesting time to toss your name out there. For those of you who are already admins, maybe you've got someone you consider a great editor who would make a good candidate. Now might be the time to start asking. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to say you were/nominated/helped promote the 1K Administrator? :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I also envisage a race among the 'crats as to who will promote the 1000th admin. :D Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be priceless. ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How exciting! 854 and counting... -- nae'blis 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let the countdown begin! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to bet that the 1000th admin will turn out to be a rouge admin. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think so? --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a cool little thing we could put on the rfa page:

{{#ifexpr: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} < 1000|We still haven't got 1000 admins yet..... only {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} which means we have {{#expr:1000 - {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} to go!|<div style="background: lightgreen; border: 3px solid green">WE have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} admins, which means we have reached 1000!!!!!</div>}}

which generates

We still haven't got 1000 admins yet..... only 854 which means we have 146 to go!

GeorgeMoney (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because. —Centrx→talk • 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because why? GeorgeMoney (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Duck season! --Durin 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you'll start a fight and people will be squabbling to get there first. It's the same reason they don't have an official count of suicides off the Golden Gate Bridge. It's hard to believe but apparentlyh they worry it will be a magnet for people trying to commit suicide i.e. be the 1000th victim. Actually that analogy seems quite apt ;) David D. (Talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Point taken. --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment seems on point considering that the admin count can be easily manipulated by any admin (by a simple desysopping request). We've had a lot of those recently. Any more admins willing to take the plunge? ;) NoSeptember 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It would seem, based on the list of former administrators, that we passed #1000 promoted somewhere between 30 and 35 admins ago... -- nae'blis 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Given this observation Georgemoneys admin counter needs to look like this:

{{#ifexpr: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} < 1000|We still haven't got 1000 active admins yet..... only {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} which means we have {{#expr:1000 - {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} to go. However, since 40 admin have been desysopped for various reasons, to date, wikipedia has actually promoted  {{#expr:40 + {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} users to admin status.|<div style="background: lightgreen; border: 3px solid green">WE have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} active admins, which means we have reached 1000!!!!!</div>}}

To giv ethe following output:

We still haven't got 1000 active admins yet..... only 854 which means we have 146 to go. However, since 40 admin have been desysopped for various reasons, to date, wikipedia has actually promoted 894 users to admin status.

David D. (Talk) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by how things are going now, the 1000th admin is going to be either Netsnipe or Winhunter, depending on how Guinnog's RfA goes. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got fifty bucks on Netsnipe. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do I foresee a bookmaking scandal at WP:RFA being exposed in the not so distant future? = P --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, by getting resysopped, Jaranda has messed with our 1000th admin count ;-). NoSeptember 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

<vader>Noooooooooooooooooo...!!!</vader> --  Netsnipe  ►  18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well ignoring me, and it's likely Guinnog or Netsnipe, I don't count. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't ignore you, we haven't ignored all the other desysoppings and resysoppings that have happened of late. {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} = 854 NoSeptember 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well try to, I only regained adminship back to try to help out with those horrible backlogs in the images while I'm not editing much because of school and my soon going to be job in Best Buy, only coming for homework and hurricanes. Try to count the other one, as I don't want to be the 1,000th :p Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, you aren't. I only meant to say that you changed which RfA will be the one to make us hit #1000. As you can see from the red number above your post, you only raised the number to 997. The 1000th will happen in September. NoSeptember 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that Guinnog has been promoted, it looks like Xyrael will be # 1000 and September 2nd will be the date (The month of September is a good month for it :). NoSeptember 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I could really screw with you guys and go ask a former admin in good standing like Kim Bruning if they want their bit back. Which way was the betting going again? jk folks, move along, nothing to see here. - Taxman ^Talk 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Kim banking on his non-admin status to win a seat on the board? Even with 1000 admins, the non-admins completely outnumber us ;). NoSeptember 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems a good argument for not tracking who the 1000th admin is. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My goal was to get a rush of nominations out of this thread and more admins as a result. I think that did not happen :(. NoSeptember 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it did, but no one wants to mention it, for fear of that causing people to oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

2 to go! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How many people remember the one millionth user? They didn't make even one edit. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember the one millionth article. If a user is defined by signing up, not editing, then the measurement was flawed. Can we honestly count X on Wheels or NoSeptember is a XX as legitimate users? NoSeptember 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can! user:NoSeptember is a XX is a great user. Strong support. I thought this user already was a user. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, from whats going on right now there are 4 main possibilities:

• 1. Xyrael - closing 11:29 September 2 - current tally 52/6/4 (likely to succeed)
• 2. Netsnipe - closing 16:16 September 2 - current tally 55/3/3 (likely to succeed)
• 3. Winhunter - closing 23:14 September 3 - current tally 46/0/3 (likely to succeed)
• 4. Carnildo - closing 3:52 September 5 - current tally 97/61/9 (mmm... maybe)

Let the countdown really begin!!!! Like 1999 all over again!!! weeee!!! :D -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 07:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And the winner is User:Xyrael! -- tariqabjotu 11:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to promote xyrael, but Angela beat me to it by a few mins. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin Growth chart

Would anyone be interested in creating a chart showing admin growth, similar to this one from German WP? NoSeptember 13:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. Do you know where I (or others) could find out how many articles existed on the English Wikipedia at a certain point in time? -- tariqabjotu 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a magic word for it, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, and I'm sure some people were tracking it. I think the place to ask would be the Village Pump. It may be in the history of m:List of Wikipedias. There should be a page tracking the historical number and I'm sure there must be one. In June I started a page to track the admin count number because we need to track that trend too, not just have the current number. NoSeptember 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics has the monthly numbers for each year. As a note to the topic, if there is some good to come out of this section, that might be finding and nominating more good candidates. The admin to be promoted when the count of current admins passes 1000 (the same way we counted the millionth article) has not been nominated yet. Go find the best candidates now. :) - Taxman ^Talk 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My best attempt to create a similar graph is at Image:En-admin-growth.png. I could not figure out how to get the line superimposed in Microsoft Excel; I'm doubting the creator of the German image even used Excel. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done! NoSeptember 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

. I've updated the above graph to include a series for article count (it is possible in Excel, just not obvious!) If someone has got a count of users per month I'll happily product a similar version for that. Petros471 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, because it appears to show that the ratio of articles to active admins is increasing -- surely a bad thing. Mike Christie (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well we used to routinely promote more than 1 admin per day, but now that rate has gone way down, so the fact that article growth outstrips admin growth is no surprise. NoSeptember 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Great piece of work. Well done! --Guinnog 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The number of users per month is at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm -- nae'blis 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

These are indeed excellent, thanks. This seems to show that we're starting to fall behind in our admin:article ratio and have been seeing a significant and widening gap since around the beginning of this year. It would also be interesting to chart the number of admins applying during the same period; that might shed some light on how appropriate the standards we use are, at least against this metric. Gwernol 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you compare it, though? There's Image:RfAsPerWeek.png from November 2005, but it's only a small snapshot... maybe you could combine the data here with User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) somehow? It's such a small sample size, though... -- nae'blis 14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My admin stats chart includes RfAs rejected, which I get from my failed RfAs list. NoSeptember 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And, as Petros requested, an admin vs. "users with 10+ contributions" graph. I didn't spend too much time looking for the total user count, but I suppose that's for the best as we've gone from one million registered users to two million registered users in six months (hmm... that's a bit strange and that certainly wouldn't make for a lovely graph). However, as Petros pointed out, that data might still be useful in that the creation of frivolous accounts can lead to more work for admins (if they're vandalism-only accounts or inappropriately named).

So, here's an admin vs. "number of edits per month" graph; that should be more useful than a total registered account graph. Anyway, I suppose I'll step away from the graphs now... -- tariqabjotu 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks. Now I can say 'we need more admins' with a bit more confidence... (As if the current at least 8 admin backlogs wasn't enough say so!) Even if you take into account bots doing more work (both increasing the edits per month count and taking *some* of the load off admin RC patrollers, it still seems pretty clear that we do need more admins promoted per month than is happening now. Petros471 16:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The admins vs articles graph is interesting. It seems the natural number of articles per admin is around 1,100. We've held steady on that number for most of the history shown on the graph - the one time we strayed from it (the 2nd half of 2005), we had a sudden increase in promotions to bring it back to that ratio. If that's anything to go by, we're due for an increase in promotions now. --Tango 16:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a graph... a 4 line graph with the lines 1)articles, 2)edits, 3)users, 4)admins, and start it at January 2004 for better detail. NoSeptember 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This was the best I could do on that one. The problem I came across is that those four data series have different scales. To force them to be close enough for comparison purposes required me to apply a different scale factor to each of the article, user, and edit series. Therefore don't try and obtain numbers from this graph- it exists purely as a trend comparison. Hope that makes sense (if not just use the other ones above!) Petros471 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed how growth in number of admins is roughly linear, while growth in number of edits appears exponential? Ut oh. Kim Bruning 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly my reaction, too, Kim. If RfA continues as it's going, there is no way the Admins will ever be able to keep up with demand. The people !voting on RFA just don't understand that their !votes are causing larger and larger backlogs. Every day we reject another person who wants to help, we're just making the few Admins work harder, and more junk will get through. How do we know it's not getting through already? Firsfron of Ronchester 10:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Something else to think about: On Jan 1st of this year we listed 42 inactive and 23 former admins (total: 65), today we list 83 inactive and 40 former admins (total: 123). So two of the eight months of this year, we have been merely promoting admins to replace those who have left. Attrition rate increasing, promotion rate decreasing, while edits keep exploding. NoSeptember 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a graph of amount of RfAs in general per week/month? There are only 7 RfAs now, but I remember there often being about 14 at once several months ago. Is the amount of people applying going down? --Rory096 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's this graph, but it needs some updating. However, based on the data already in the graph, I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you can do a graph of number of policies (and if possible, kb of policy) & number of administrators over time? It grows ever harder to learn everything one ought to learn to become an effective administrator. I suspect policy is outstripping the guardians of policy implementation. Williamborg (Bill) 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes one more graph idea, but it is useful! All this is great but moreuseful might be a graph of number of articles per active admins. That would inconclusively show the need for more admins. I agree though with hwhat has been said above, we are currently only replacing admins that have retired or become inactive yet the article count is still increasing!It looks like my RFA is going to failk (well there wasnt much hope really), I'm not bitter just sad i cant help out in another way. I am certain I will be able to in th future but for now... I also think that alot of experienced and rewgualr editors are not getting nominated for adminship - all of whom would pass with flying colours. And they don't dare self-nom as people dont seem to like that. It's a tricky situation all round and evantually I am sure it will work out, but for now things are in the balance. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. The point about the amount of policy to get to grips with is a good point. At some point it will take users longer to become experienced enough to be an admin, simply because they will take longer to read through a reasonable amount of policy and get to know the ropes in certain areas. As an example of specialisation away from certain areas, I've personally always avoided this thing called RC Patrol, mainly because I've never liked the idea of stalking vandals and swatting them, necessary though it is. Also, the more policy and guidelines bloat out of control, the more likely it is that current admins will start to become out of touch with what is happening 'on the ground'. Though the anarchic aspects of Wikipedia are there, it is possible for people to feel that they know it all, when in fact they very rarely do. I've often seen even obviously experienced admins taken aback by things they hadn't come across before. Also, as the number of ordinary users outstrips admins by a greater amount, they will find and tag things for admins to do, increasing the backlogs. So yes, more admins are needed it seems. Carcharoth 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the Village Pump about whether some separation of deletion capability from other admin powers might be useful. One response was that a generally finer granularity might be a good approach. This could complicate RfA dramatically, of course, so there's a big downside. However, it does seem to address the specialization issue, and might speed up the ability of certain editors to acquire certain bits. What if Carnildo, whose current RfA is clearly going to fail, had been able to request just the deletion bit? There might well have been a consensus to give him that. If vandalfighters had the rollback bit, and more experienced vandalfighters had the blocking bit, and deletion reviewers had the deletion viewing bit -- would that help with keeping admin growth up? I would think RfA would remain the primary venue, with the alternatives routes only taken for those whose experience or history did not make a successful RfA likely. Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to revive Requests for rollback privileges. Personally, I think the atmosphere here at RFA has changed since it was first proposed, so with a bit of tweaking, it may have a shot this time. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

question about the process

why is voting entirely optional? so if by some random chance only 10 people vote within the week and 8 of them vote yes, itll go up for final review and passed. how does this ensure candidate is even the right person for admin duties? and how much of the edit count do you people take into account towards your vote, and what significance does edit count even mean towards administrative duties. why not require a percentage of the entire collection of admins and/or mandatory voting? why are special priviliges like admin rights only given to registered users? other than the reason of ip spoofing/changing68.161.183.243 00:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that only 10 will vote, and if it does happen it is up to the beaureaucrat to decide. Edit count is often taken into account, because it shows the person has been around a while and will be familiar with Wikipedia. Registered users can get the "mop" because they are seen as more reliable than an anonymous user. Hope this helps. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I think the reason is more to do with the fact that anonymous IP accounts are by definition unsafe (they can't be protected with a password, many are shared etc.). Like with registered users, I have encountered some fantastic anonymous users and I have encountered some real jerks - being registerd is neither here nor there. Mandatory voting would be nearly impossible to enact as there is no way to enforce it. Only allowing the admin pool would be divisive, giving the impression that administrators are some form of over-class and are vetter qualified to make judgements than everyone else. Rje 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

but administrators are otherwise all users would be allowed to delete restore protect etc. normal average users are less likely able to judge the abilities of a would be administrator as well as administrative peers would be. mandatory voting as in the case will not proceed until a certain number of users and/or admins have voted. out of almost a thousand users granted administrative rights and thousands more users, a hundred votes is practically negligable. that said, how many of the thousand administrators do you believe is qualified to have admin rights? edit counts can also be easily falsified and the numbers themselves say very little other than how many times a person has decided to change anything, simply by themselves they say little on how well they know the guidelines and policies administrators have to watch over. i am also wondering if there has ever or will be a global administrative review? i know at a thousand admins it would be a hassle but if they were periodic, say every three years since a user has been granted admin rights, they would have to go up for a review if they wish to keep the rights. but then that would also fall under the same problem i see in various places, a lack of significant number of votes. 68.161.183.243 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The software running the site has no capacity to grant privledges to individual IP accounts. Dragons flight 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With IPs changing now and then, that would be a problem. Michael 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected?

Why is this protected...? Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By "this" I assume you mean the RfA page itself? I believe because it has been the target of considerable IP vandalism whenever it has been unprotected. Gwernol 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The RfA page has actually been the target of minimal vandalism; those supporting protection of this page tend to argue that anonymous users just don't need to edit it. It was protected for two weeks in February, another two weeks in April, the month of June, and then just protected again last week on the basis of preventing 'fake RfA additions'. See the protection log. ~ PseudoSudo 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition the vandalism problems, there is also no disadvantage to it. There is no reason why an IP or a 3-day old username would need to edit the main RfA page; everything except a few sentences is split off into (unprotected) subpages and it is not a problem that any minor edit to those few sentences would need to wait a few hours for an "established" user to add them (and for major ones they need discussion here first anyway). While the level of vandalism here would not warrant any longer-term protection of an article, this is not an article and in a way it is not even a policy or process page: it is a skeleton that links other, editable pages. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claim of anonymous users having 'no reason' to edit the page is not valid. First of all, active anonymous users are as entitled to submit nominations as any other user with a registered account is; please challenge me on that point if you don't buy it. Second of all, personally I've never written up a nom but yet have still edited this page a half-dozen times, fixing errors and de-listing other noms for various reasons; there's routine maintenance work on this page to be done that can be performed by anyone who wants to. We are a wiki that anyone can edit. ~ PseudoSudo 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

idealy anyone can edit. in practice so far that i have seen, admins step in and revert edits they dont like instead of attempting to fix or flag for someone else to68.161.183.243 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The nominated candidate can add their own RfA nomination to the main page, they have to accept the nomination and answer the questions anyway and it shouldn't be added before they agree. Anonymous users shouldn't be de-listing RfAs and it doesn't save any effort, someone would have to check that the de-listing was proper anyway, and it is not a problem if a malformed RfA is on the page for a few minutes or even hours. What are the errors and routine maintenance work you are talking about? I clicked on 25 random diffs, all of them were users adding their own nominations, well-established users removing bad-faith and malformed nominations (none of which would it have been appropriate for an anon to remove), and bureaucrats closing RfAs. The only two IP edits in that selection were one adding an RfA page that didn't exist, and another blanking the page. Note that if you mean fixing up something in the "About RfA" header, that is a separate, unprotected subpage. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In this section, I'd be surprised to see many anons wanting to participate. There is no reason not to make an account if you wish to do this. Michael 00:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrat nomination pending

This is just to point out that we have a Bureaucrat nomination pending. It seems to have been near-universally overlooked because RfB's are added to the bottom rather than the top of the RfA page (perhaps some sort of additional reference at the top of RfA would be worthwhile). The RfB nomination raises some issues that are worthy of discussion and it would be good if more RfA participants weighed in both on the candidate and on the issues raised. Newyorkbrad 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Our last RfB (Redux's) drew 80 opinions back in June and it too (IIRC) was in the same place on the RfA page. I don't think the position on the page is what's driving the low turnout for Ram-Man's RfB. I will note that the number of opinions on all RfAs seems to have dropped over the last few months - this is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but my impression is we were getting around 80 on most RfAs early in the summer and are now seeing 60 on average; I'd love to see the actual numbers. My guess is that not many people have strong opinions they want to express about this particular candidate, but maybe there are other factors? Gwernol 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just the location. When I come to the RfA page, I generally look to the top of the list and see if there are any new additions. Due to how scarce it is that someone is nominated for RfB, the location is a problem. Michael 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Section headers

Looks like someone has aggressively archived this page... Anyway, it seems we still don't have support/oppose/neutral sections for ease of editing despite (I thought) consensus to do it. Also, when editing the page it's hard to find the tally for updating. Edit conflicts are all too common on RFAs and we need to improve the layouts with this in mind. If it breaks a bot or a script so be it, they'll have to update it - Wikipedia pages are for editors first and foremost, not programs :) --kingboyk 09:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Can we have section headers please? --Ligulem 09:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.Voice-of-All 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, I'd say, its so hard finding the tally, i can't be bothered to update it, let alone find it. Plus, when I was writing even this I had an edit conflict. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 20:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no, no! It creates the most ridiculous TOCs as soon as the page gets any busier than its current very quiet state. This is why they've never flown before. No section headers. Just edit patiently. You've got a week, there's no need to !vote right now! -Splash - tk 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Splash, there's a technical solution for the TOC problem and has been for a while. The form contemplated now puts a TOC into the individual nom tha thas the individual sections but they are NOT present in the overall RFA page TOC.. only the noms themselves are, but none of the sections within the noms. This was prototyped and shown to work. Do you still think this is a bad idea? ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Can you point me to the prototype? (I think this would be useful in some articles, too.) -Splash - tk 13:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

As I understand it, it's dead simple (we had a much more complex one that involved wacky things)!!!!... surround the headings with noinclude tags like this:

<noinclude>==</noinclude>'''Support'''<noinclude>==</noinclude>

The effect is that when transcluded there are no headings, only bolded "support" etc but when not transcluded, clickable headings. If you want to get fancy you can also include edit links but that's not needed. It's been tested and it works. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A prototype can be found in Eagle's RfA if you go back in the history, these were there when it went live but someone removed them out. ++Lar: t/c 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: the actual headers would be done with === rather than == as shown in the example above, sorry about that. ++Lar: t/c 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work. Since Template:RfA is a template, those noinclude tags apply to it, so all that comes out on the RfA subpage is "'''Support'''. --Rory096 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All fixed. --Rory096 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lar, Rory096. If whatever Rory096's fix was makes whatever wasn't working work then I see no downside to this. Just as long as we don't finish up with a FA-length TOC this time next week! -Splash - tk 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple RFA proposal

For an RFA put up a person's name, a tally, a support, an oppose and a neutral. Nothing else. (no sections headers either they are a pain.) NO other crap, no edit counts, no gushy noms, no questions, nothing. This way, if you know the person you can make an intelligent entry on the RFA. If you don't, you have to go research their qualifications on your own, and can't just sheep onto the info regurgitated for you by other editors. Anyone who comments "support, this guy is kewl!" will look like an idiot and it will be immediatley obvious who didn't do their homework. Let the info come out in the wash and people's comments. (OMG a *real* discussion!) Make it simple and FORCE PEOPLE TO THINK FOR ONCE. pschemp | talk 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This makes way too much sense to ever work. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Too easy to get around. People will just put up a lot of "oppose per" and "support per" and/or will just spend the few seconds it takes to get the edit counts. The current system for its problems is working well. JoshuaZ 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, that's exactly what they do now. How would this make that worse? I think the current system is too full of crap one must wade through. pschemp | talk 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea, but I think if three people oppose in the beginning, most others will follow in suit instead of doing research for themselves. Michael 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, they do that now anyway. This can't stop people from being idiots totally, but at least people won't have to wade through paragraphs of crap to see it. pschemp | talk 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is true. Michael 01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA is not a vote, it's a discussion. Simply posting votes is anti-Wikipedian culture. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic? Michael 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposal was to not include anything but votes, obviously. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not if you read it. I didn't even use the word votes. Discussion happens in comments. pschemp | talk 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. And if you simply posted a comment without an attached discussion you'd look silly. This moves the discussion to the comments, and lets it form there, rather than having the discussion pre-digested and written for you in all of the other stuff. It promotes discussion, whereas now you just read the crap and say something, you don't even have to think. Its a simple and elegant way to organize and force discussion. pschemp | talk 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does your proposal say anything about posting to the Talk page? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, nor did I say it did. An "attached discussion" goes in the comment (what you are calling "votes"). the point is that when you make your comment in support or whichever, you support it with a discussion of your reasons right there. This makes listing edit counts, etc not needed as discussion takes place in the comments people post.pschemp | talk 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If this change were made, people would be forced to discuss rather than have everything laid out for them. Michael 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And Zoe, people usually discuss on the RfA itself. Michael 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal makes absolutely no mention of discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what is meant by "intelligent entry". One with reasons and facts attached to it. That is a discussion. pschemp | talk 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zoe here, the proposal makes this sound like turning RfA into a blatant vote/poll with no mention of discussion (we were just supposed to assume that part?) Anyway, if someone doesn't discuss on the talk page, do we strike their uh... comment? If they don't discuss "enough" do we do the same? Who determines this? Are the b'crats (who'd be the most likely people to enforce this) even interested in this extra work, which would be considerable? Proposal leaves a lot of questions unanswered. And getting snarky with objecters doesn't help. --W.marsh 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting snarky. Sorry if you think I am. To me "intelligent entry" means one with a discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I absolutely oppose just recording a support/oppose nuetral without a discussion attached to it. The purpose of throwing out this idea is not play semantics with the words I wrote, but discuss an alternative method of doing things. Agian, my definition of "intelligent entry" is one that includes a discussion and reasoning. You also are confused as I never proposed putting anything on a talk page, but instead a comment would say (for example) Support - This user deserves to be an admin because of blah blah blah and I looked at this contrib and I think he shows a good attitude here and so on and so forth. This creates no more work than what is already there. pschemp | talk 02:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with pschemp here. The present system may encourage the candidate to make lengthy statements, partly to avoid being accused of "not needing the tools" or having "poor answers to questions". The nomination could become a joint enterprise, ie the nominator and the candidate fill in a form (template) together (no self-noms), using an adaptation of the current three-questions format, then other editors support oppose or neutral, with brief evidenced reasons. Anything beyond a few words, and any additional questions and discussion should go on the discussion page, and should be strongly encouraged. Keeping the !votes and the discussion separate will aid clarity, and insisting on reasoned !votes will aid collegiality. Of course you will still have the problem of "per nom" or "per xxx" contributions. They could, I suppose, be marked as endorsements below the nom or the other user's !vote. --Guinnog 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal says, For an RFA put up a person's name, a tally, a support, an oppose and a neutral. Nothing else.. Where does all of this talk of opposing support/oppose/neutral without a discussion, "intelligent" or otherwise, come from? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

People put their explanations beside their support/oppose/neutral. Michael 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up. Both you and pschemp are trying to force us to discuss something that you are not proposing. Until you actually propose something that you claim you are proposing, there is no point in further discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp proposed it, and we clarified the idea. It's an idea for a proposal. You had questions. Michael 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't clarified anything. You're both talking around the subject by trying to claim that you are proposing something which you are not proposing. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an idea for a proposal. What, specifically, has not been answered? Michael 03:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is my last posting on the subject until the "proposal" is rewritten. pschemp's proposal said that there should be nothing on the RfA but a support, oppose, neutral. When I, then W.marsh objected, you and he both suddenly started saying, "no, that isn't what the proposal says, we said there should be discussion on the Talk page." No, that is what the proposal says, and you are not addressing my objections, you're merely attacking me for not being able to read your minds. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that refers to the physical format of the RFA when it is put on the page. It doesn't mean that's the end of the process. Then people add their comments in the appropriate section with their discussion/reasoning. (That's an intelligent entry). I'm not attacking you for anything. pschemp | talk 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is attacking you, and what was said was that voters include the discussion beside their vote of support/oppose/neutral as it is now (i.e. Support - great vandal fighter). That's the type of discussion, and as you know, people may also make discussions. The proposal was mainly to do away with the listing of the edit count, standardized questions, nominations, etc. Michael 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, this is a discussion about an idea, not a vote on the exact wording of something. Since when was I not allowed to clarify what I meant? I'll try again to help you understand. When an RFA is listed, the only headers put on the page are "Name, tally, support, oppose, neutral." Then, when people add their name under a header, they include a discussion of why they voted that way, right after their choice of Support, Oppose or Neutral. Each entry then looks something like: Support - This user deserves to be an admin because of blah blah blah and I looked at this contrib and I think he shows a good attitude here and so on and so forth. None of the questions or edit counts or any of the other info we currently plaster all over the page is included. This way, to make the Support/oppose reasons and discussion they type in the Support/Oppose/Neutral section right after the word Support/Oppose/Neutral be a real, intelligent, thought out reason, they will have to go look up the information themselves. All the extraneous info is not there for people just to copy. They must hunt it down themselves, so that when they post their vote/comment/disscussion in the appropriate section, it becomes a real discussion and not just a regurgitation of the other info listed on the page like we have now. pschemp | talk 03:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Michael 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even simpler version. Rfa is just like it is now, but no noms, questions or statistics are included and when people make a "vote" (which isn't a vote, its a comment) they add an original, reasoned discussion right after the word Support/Oppose/Neutral - using that entry as a discussion of the candidate. This way people have to do their own research before they vote so they will have something to say and because no other info about the candidate is provided. pschemp | talk 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would comments in the vein of "support per so-and-so" be prohibited? Are there really enough possible "original, reasoned" justifications to go around? Also, I'm afraid that under this system, users would still vote without research, but this time simply follow the crowd and make entirely uninformed votes, rather than drawing on the (admittedly limited) information about the user in the nomination and whatnot. — Dan | talk 04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But some users would do research, and those that do not may have a lesser desire to vote if they don't have something right in front of them that then requires little thought in deciding one's vote. Michael 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal sounds like a good idea. The whole "nomination" culture here is crap suboptimal anyway (it gives the false impression that sysophood is something like an award, which it isn't). Anything that helps moving to a more discussion like style on RfA's would be good. There should be more of a culture for working towards consensus, which means that panelists should think about all statements made by others and rethink their position if points are brought up by others. We need to benefit of the brain power of the whole group of panelists. We can't expect everyone to do a complete perfect deep scrutinity of their own. I generally fear that a lot of people never move their positions because they think it makes them looking imperfect: being bound forever to what one has said in the past ("I shall not be moved"). This is not a evaluation of all arguments. --Ligulem 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

I just found an interesting link about me [1] Hope this proves my past points about my RFA's.. — Moe Epsilon 02:55 September 03 '06

Which 'crat closed your RFA? This might be something to bring up with him. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but to be fair, only two of the oppose !voters have less than 500 edits, meaning that the sockpuppetry was minimal, at best. Ral315 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt many people on that site (other than the poster) have ever heard of you. Look at the responses. Michael 16:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Requiring diffs for !votes

While we're on the train of thought of "now for something completely different" for RfA, I thought I'd share something that came to mind recently: require that every !vote provide (at least) three diffs supporting their case for supporting/opposing/etc. In my mind, this would accomplish a few things, including:

1. Force people to actually look through the user's contributions (odds are you'll have to click on at least 10 diffs to get 3 good/bad ones)
2. Prevent a user from being condemned for one bad diff (mistakes can be forgiven; a pattern of bad edits should be investigated)
3. Make arguments better supported and help keep it from becoming a vote (would help stop simple "Support" or "Oppose" votes with absolutely no other comment, and would stop opposes to which someone responds, "Can you provide an example of this?")

And probably a few other things generally relating to informed discussion. Not sure how practical this suggestion is, but I figured I'd at least throw it out there for discussion. It's also completely possible that I simply need some sleep, which I will try to do right after clicking "Save page" here. I look forward to everyone discussing and completely demolishing this idea. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

After some time, everyone would list the same thing. "Good user, good edit number, good talk page discussions." How could you enforce this, and how could you make it so everything couldn't be summed up together. On some RfAs, you may have one solid reason for opposing, in which case you may have difficulty coming up with several. Repeated bad behavior in one field is one such example. Michael 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea and I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's in the Wikipedia spirit to force someone to participate a certain way. Discussing RfA's are purely voluntary and one should be able to participate however one wants, be it a singular word (i.e. support, oppose, neutral) or a three hundred word summation the candidate. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, imagine making someone give three reasons for opposing - not one, but three. That would be awkward for both parties. Michael 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For supporting, providing a specific diff seems unnecessary. The qualifications for adminship concern a body of work. e.g., someone who's a long-time recent changes patroller has done a lot of good work that bears well on an adminship. A diff (or three) of vandalism reversion, however, is meaningless. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RFAs getting too restrictive?

A little over a year ago, according to user:NoSeptember's data, we had around 18 RFAs going at once. That number has dwindled considerably since then, as more and more qualifications and barriers ("too many userboxes", "annoying signature", "no featured articles", "must have 7/24ths of edits in talk space") have been erected. We currently only have 5 open RFAs, some of which definitely will not be successful.

It seems pretty clear from users' edits that they aren't applying in part because they feel they would never qualify (Small sampling to back up this claim: here or User:Elkman/In case of RFA (deleted page)).

We're rejecting editors who want to help, often for really silly reasons. and we're driving away people who might otherwise apply. The backlogs are growing. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In my point of view, the some Admin in Wikipedia are horrible. I believe any reason is a good reason. I encourage voting.

So please withhold your judgement about the reasons in question.

There are so many bots and programs running Wikipedia, we hardly need any more admin. I suggest quality over quantity. As per request, I will be listing myself for Admin shortly. As well as voting again in the RFA's. While it seems I was a disruption to the RFA process. It's not serious enough, nor possible to block me for voting in the RFA. --Masssiveego 09:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, Masssive. BTW, I've refactored your comments because you added some stuff to my sentences above, like "heer aggrivation of having horrible admin hawking over you. I hareasons". I don't even know what that means, or why it was added to my statement. Anyway, I agree that, in principle, requiring a few extra things could be good for WP, but in practice, it is driving away good editors in droves. Going from 18 to 5 applicants a week means we lose hundreds of helping hands every year. and I do not agree that we have enough admins: out backlogs say quite the opposite. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I don't think anyone's suggesting blocking you for RFA votes. Or if they are, that's news to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not always a proponent of idea that markets self-correct, but I wonder whether something like that will happen here. The admin growth chart section above implies to me that things are going to get worse before they get better. Presumably, as admins see the backlogs build, they (and to some extent non-admins) will start to wish for more admins, and to participate more in RfAs, and to be more inclined to support. That's not to argue that that's the best answer -- if we could promote good admins now, we could avoid the backlog, and the associated poorer quality of the encyclopaedia. But it may end up that way.

I should also say that as I gain more understanding of Wikipedia policies, my criteria for RfA are changing. I started voting less than a month ago, and my current standards ask for a minimum edit count (though I will waive that for the right candidate). I am now more and more convinced that what I care about most is whether (a) I trust the editor, and (b) they have learnt enough WP policy not to screw anything up while they are learning the rest. If the understanding of other editors of what it takes to be an admin changes, as mine has, then presumably the experience profile of the RfA voters makes a big difference to the outcomes. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It definently does seem like RfA is promoting only those who are squeaky clean to the point where it seems like they've acted robotically for their (brief-but-not-too-brief) WP careers. It's been called a reverse turing test - the current RfA detects humans who act like robots. So understandably, few people qualify... and I think fewer people are apprently bothering.

My suggestion? Don't oppose out of spite! Just because someone rubbed you the wrong way in an argument doesn't mean they won't be a good admin. Don't assume bad faith! If a good-faith editor has apologized for a minor to moderate mistake and says it won't happen again, it's really pathetic if 20 people still oppose because of something the candidate has said won't happen again. That's punative, not preventative. Oppose because you think someone will misuse the admin tools, or there simply isn't enough evidence to make that determination. Don't treat adminship like some kind of prize, and act like creating more admins makes your prize less valuable.

Anyway, RfA simply boils down to the people involved. If their quality is high, the quality of RfA is high. And vise versa. Better participation = a better RfA. --W.marsh 14:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is just normal that standards advance as time passes. A 2004 FA article would have never been considered FA material today, as I noticed with Ford Mustang. Standards change, are polished, and usually become more restrictive. In soccer, 10 years ago, a player could pass the ball to a goalkeeper with a kick, who could pick it up with his hands. Now that would be a fault. Some years before, you were able to carry scissors on a plane. Now you are called a terrorist. I notice that now more people help with the requests (as in, comment, "vote", etc). Adminship isn't a big deal. If you are doing the things right, you are likely to get a chance. I feel it nice that simple edit count isn't enough to ensure your adminship. -- ReyBrujo 16:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's natural for editcount requirements to go up. But my point is that people are putting in new criteria by objecting to everyone they don't happen to like, or expecting people to have basically never expressed much personality at all, and refuse to accept an apology once they actually do. Others seem to oppose unless the candidate is of the same POV as them, etc. That stuff will never be a good "standard" to have, no matter how long wikipedia is around. --W.marsh 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to the original inquiry, I should have pointed that :) Anyways, yes, some disregard candidates because of very strange conditions. However, from what I see in the Standard page, there are only a few that seem to imply "Depends on my mood", thus I am confident most votes are still based on Wikipedia namespace edits, interaction with users, participation in admin duties, etc. -- ReyBrujo 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rey (and Marsh and Mike, above) for your comments. I agree with W.marsh when he says some of the "standards" do appear to be based on "Do I like this candidate", or "Do I agree with his views". That's a bad standard to follow. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So far I've notice all kinds of excuses to discount my vote. From WP:Point, to Personal attack. So for some wierd reason my reasons also must follow completely certain guidelines of Wikipedia. If I don't give a reason it's a disruption, if I do give a reason it's a violation of policy. Even when the reasons are valid all kind of trouble seems to pop up. Still once it's clear what the safe harbor is for voting, then I'll vote again. As I said before we have some horrible crappy admin that seem to love to make some users lives miserable. The only quality control to ensuring the Admin coming in is voting. Even then I'm getting threats from admin that I'm a disruption for voting when I disagree with the majority. When I clearly state my reasons in every vote. Until I can get a second for a arbcom complaint, which in itself is difficult. Which would better clarify when asking for a the higher standard becomes a disruption.. When clearly all other rules have been followed.

Please note my talk page about User:MONGO User:Cyde --Masssiveego 19:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Masssive,

I don't agree with those folks on your talk page who are saying your votes are disruptive. I'm saying that, in general, I feel RFA is becoming somewhat silly, with candidates forced to "tailor" their editing to match any number of criteria. We do need to "weed out" the bad candidates. But now we're weeding so much we've only got five veggies left in our entire garden!Firsfron of Ronchester 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Id kinda agree with this actually. Less people are being promoted and higher standards are needed. What was encouraging, I found, was that I failed my RFA mostly on the basis of my views on a certain policy. It was unfortunate it cropped up (I would have failed anyway I didnt self-nom and expect to pass really) but encouraging that few opposers cited edit counts. So policy approval is a good marker? well yes but then that view is subjective too. I think it all boils down to if you like and respect a user - and if you trust him with the tools. I really cant say if people are basing their !votes on that - but I fear (and I guess some of you do to) that they arent.

This is an issue that has been discussed before many many times and I dont think its going to change for the time being. In the future there will, I expect, be a sudden drought of admins and the revrse may happen (loads of unqualifieds passign through) but wee will have to wait and see. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of the topic. The standards seem unusual. One person's standards for support seem the be the next's standards for an oppose in some cases. Michael 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the direction of RFAs is inevitable, and it's because of flaws in the process. For instance; someone above mentioned selecting candidates based on trust, and another editor mentioned that their votes are called 'disruptive'. If I were to vote against a candidate and say the reason was because I 'didn't trust' him or her, my contribution would probably be discounted. So I will comb through that candidate's stats to find something I can glom onto that will make my vote count. That 'something' is probably going to be edit count, mainspace edits, some conflict that ended badly, poor edit summary compliance, block history, gaps in editing, or some other essentially irrelevant statistic that is necessary to bolster the validity of 'votes', because unsupported opinions are discounted. It's inevitable, IMO. 'Oppose' editors are hounded, IMO. So of course they're going to try to justify their contributions with statistics (which are hard to argue against). Which is going to end up becoming part of the basic criteria through passive consensus. Anchoress 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone mentions in passing that the only problem they see is a low user talk edit count, another user may clamp onto this, using this as an excuse if he or she just doesn't like the user or has had disputes with the user. Michael 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. And after 50 RFAs where 20 editors all said 'Oppose per so-and-so, poor user talk edit count', even if that wasn't the real oppose reason, all of a sudden low user talk edit count becomes part of the criteria for exclusion. I personally think that an (established) editor should be able to say that they don't like a candidate, they don't trust a candidate, etc, and their contribution should be counted. Otherwise it just becomes successively more process wanking and wikilawyering. Anchoress 04:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to add in my two cents, I agree with Firsfron that the standards nowadays tend to scare a lot of good editors off. In the last few months, I've seen several candidacies by outstanding editors fail (or face opposition), often because someone points out a recent, often well-intentioned edit that may be seen as questionable (i.e. writing "rvv" on an edit summary when reverting an edit that's not blatant vandalism but a new or anon user's test). From reading some random oppose votes, I do get the impression that the editor's (entire) (recent) history are scrutinized by occasional editors who are looking for the slightest mis-step to constitute an "oppose" if the nominee is someone with whom they are unfamiliar with or have had less-than-wonderful encounters. Furthermore, I see a whole lot more users who have posted their voting standards than regularly vote in RfAs. Perhaps the bulk of these users rarely visit the page nowadays or are occupied with other tasks, but it seems like this has encouraged a mentality of declaring a personal standard, based on the standards of others, in which one only supports users with ___ edits, ___ weeks/months/years experience, ___ Wikipedia space edits, a ___-colored userpage, etc., which has become the basis of many RfA votes.

In general, I think the candidate's answers to the questions should be considered most relevant when browsing an RfA. In my opinion, inexperience/suitability can be better judged by the quality and content of those answers than an editor's date of registration, number of edits, or other qualifiers. Barring a history of vandalism/stubborness/aggressiveness, an editor who comes off sounding knowledgeable and experienced in those answers and making a cogent argument that being given admin tools would substantially improve his or her editing ability will likely, in my opinion, make a good admin. Fabricationary 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree with you, I doubt that would work, because I doubt many would support promoting a user who has only been on Wikipedia for a month and has 50 edits. In that case, people would just accuse the user of stealing answers from successful RfAs (i.e. "X-user answered his RfA that he would clean up the backlog. This user must be copying.") Regardless of how trivial, people will do it. Michael 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Michael. I doubt any user who's been here for a month and has amassed 50 edits 1) will answer the questions so well that his relative inexperience isn't evident or 2) will be able to copy someone else's successful RfA answers without someone noticing the copying or that the new user's stats don't match the work he or she says that he or she has done or intends to do. Fabricationary 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are always trolls, so we need to see some type of devotion to the project to even consider supporting. Michael 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Location of Tallies Mark II

I thought the concensus had been to move the tally count back to the top as before (see previous discussion). Agent 86 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is probably just because no one has modified {{RfA}} to reflect this. If you think consensus was to move the tallies, you might just consider boldly updating the template and seeing what happens. --W.marsh 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Rory096 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Supported. – Chacor 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo's re-promotion

Carnildo was an admin who was caught up in an unfortunate argument for which he was deadmined. Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period, and in that time Carnildo has proved his loyalty and value to the project. While we recognize that there are many users who are opposed to his adminship, we believe that special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case and that we should act in the spirit of forgiveness and reconcilliation which is integral to the success of our community. Carnildo has shown good will to the project despite his desysoping, and continues to contribute. We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom. - Taxman ^Talk 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (On behalf of myself, Danny, and Rdsmith4, primary writing credit to Danny :)

I still would like to have seen a better explanation from Carnildo than we got. I wouldn't have done this myself, but then, I'm not a 'crat, and I don't know everything that the 'crats, arbcom, Danny, etc... know, and given that it's probationary I'm willing to support this. I will expect that a hard look will be taken in 2 months time. We choose our crats to make hard decisions. This obviously was one of the hardest they've done in a while. Support. Not that it matters whether i do or not but i'm just sayin... Oh, and Carnildo.. you MIGHT wanna hold off on adding yourself to category:Administrators open to recall for a day or two! ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm stunned speechless. I've never had to fight so hard to avoid writing something I'll regret. This is not going to be good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

All I will say is 61.2% is remarkably low for this to pass, even on a probationary basis. – Chacor 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems the votes of 3 crats count more than those of over 70 mere peon Wikipedians. This goes against every notion of consensus, precedent or policy. If it were 71% I could see it, but 61?! It is nothing short of CORRUPTION, of the most base and petty sort, masquerading as "forgiveness and reconcilliation". Let's just do away with this charade called Rfa now and have Jimbo, the cabal, the Crats and the Arbcomm appoint admins at their pleasure. I'm none too surprised by this, but I am still sickened.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of corruption from someone who Template:Wp-diff ring somewhat hollow. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

All I'd like to say is that we are an encyclopedia project. That should take primary focus above all else. We appreciate that some people would not be happy, but sometimes you just have to do the right thing anyway. We need to do whatever we can to focus efforts back on improving articles and minimizing the time we agonize over meta, organizational issues, as this one is. - Taxman ^Talk 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How very simple it must be for those of you with your right thing detection machines. Do they sell those at Fry's yet? I guess I should pick one up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically you're saying "GET BACK TO WORK! NOTHING TO SEE HERE! MOVE ALONG!" The arrogance of power, vividly displays itself once more. A great number of us don't think you did the "right thing". This is not a Meta, organizational issue but one of fundemental policy and practice, which you choose to completely IGNORE. This isnt your project, it is Jimbo's. I wonder what he has to say on the matter?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartly suggest anyone coming here with curses and lightning spells to take a break, drink a coffee or tea, and sleep. Indeed, there is no precedent for this, but there can always be a first time. Use common sense: if you complain, do it in a civilized way. -- ReyBrujo 05:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous cases of decent guys who were failed because of oppose votes made for very trivial reasons. Except for one very controversial instance, I can't remember any instance when someone was promoted despite getting less than 75%. If the b'crats continue to be bold enough to reject spurious opposes and promote people despite the cut-off, this would serve as a nice precedent. Otherwise, well.. Tintin (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luigi30 3 passed at 72.4%. If I recall correctly, within that same timeframe an RFA failed at 77. – Chacor 05:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, WP:OMG. --Rory096 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that does not apply to my paragraph! I hide them well! -- ReyBrujo 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there sure are a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that bureaucrats are nothing more than vote tallying machines and that everything should be run by strict percentages. Well guess what ... that's just not how the system works. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone is aware that rfa is not based on strict percentages, but it is not is to say that the numbers should be completly ignored. I am deeply disturbed at this result, and very disappointed in the decision making process. If the arbcom wanted to re-admin him, they are welcome to, but doing by rfa where the result is a forgone conclusion regardless of the opposition expressed by many members of the community is quite insulting. Taxman's comment that it was the "right thing" was inappropiate in the extreme, as it belittles the concerns of many long standing members who honestly do not believe it was the right thing to do. I also think that the controversial decision is very harsh on Carnildo by putting him in a permanment spotlight, as any mistakes will not only reflect badly on him, but also reflect badly on the judgement of the bureaucrats. If this Rfa has shown anything it is that trust, once lost, is difficult to regain, and losing trust in one admin is nothing to losing trust in the bureaucrats as a group, and this decision has badly shaken my trust in them. MartinRe 10:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head here when you say, "Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain." In my view, that is a problematic attitude, symptomatic of what has happened to RfA. To much emphasis is focused on mistrust, past mistakes are highlighted, and good work is often ignored. There is no belief in a learning curve--that people can and do learn from their mistakes. So, for all the people who have turned "Assume good faith" into a trite little mantra that can be used or diregarded as it befits them, think of what that really means. Consider whether any past mistakes are forgiveable, or whether they are some indelible stain on the user that made them. If the latter, what kind of community would that lead to? As for the readminship of Carnildo, someone with whom I have had no dealings in the past, it was based not only on a tally of the votes but an assessment as well, something which lies well within the role of the bureaucrats. If not, the adminship process would be automated. Danny 11

05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to judge the merits of this readminning, but the facts are that RFA is not a vote and percentages are only part of the rationale for promoting, not promoting or readminning.--MONGO 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I voiced support for Carnildo, but to blatantly disregard many (over 70!) long-standing good-faith editors opposing with concerns just isn't right. – Chacor 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no concrete percentage required for promotion; this, I assume, all those commenting above know. I should mention also that this particular RFA contained several votes from users of questionable legitimacy, as well as votes from legitimate users which were themselves spurious, including some which admitted complete unfamiliarity with Carnildo with the exception of a brief skimming of his arbitration case. I will not give a complete explanation of which votes were not counted, since it is neither my intention nor my place to give unnecessary offence to the oppose voters who did not consider the matter with due seriousness; nevertheless I feel obliged to mention the fact that this RFA, like many other contentious nominations, required close scrutiny before a decision could be made. — Dan | talk 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I opposed, but I see this as a fair compromise. This decision was not an easy one to make, and no one will be entirely happy, but what it comes down to, like Sean Black's re-promotion a month ago, is a judgment call. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia's most disgraceful day. There can be no going back now, every future RFA is condemned to be a meaningless charade dependent on how chummy the candidate is with the 'crats. No one will ever trust the 'crats or the process again. Wikipedia has soiled its bed now it must sleep in it. Giano | talk 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  I second Giano's disgust. Does WP have any debcrating procedures we could launch against Carnildo's buds? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  I protest the suggestion that my part in the decision was based on my being "chummy" with Carnildo. I am not particularly familiar with him, and can recall no significant interaction. I made my decision based on users' votes and, for context, my reading of the relevant arbitration case. I am confident that the other two involved bureaucrats exercised similary impartiality. — Dan | talk 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So do you now plead incompetence instead of corruption, or temporary insanity?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. I'm stunned. After you (Taxman et al.) have seen that this RfA "failed", you are going to promote Carnildo out of consensus. At least you could have had the boldness to do that before his RfA had started. It seems like our voices are not needed here anymore. A pure waste of our time. If you do have other such candidacies, then please readmin them now, so we can spare us the "consensus of idots" charade in the future. --Ligulem 08:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the violation is blatant enough to be discussed in a separate WP:RfC and possible WP:RfAr (although after Mindspillage's vote I don't count on the present ArbCom too much). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that someone fixes the lemma on the project page here. It wrongfully states "The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies". This is now out of reality. --Ligulem 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cool off. There were such instances in the past. Bcrats know too well that, if their aberrant behaviour is not exposed in ArbCom, all their mistakes will be buried in the archives of this page, as have been in the past. The question is whether the community is willing to trust these bcrats any more. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the Peter Principle is alive and well here on Wikipedia, so as far as I'm concerned..hell fuck no.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to offer around some chill pills here. If Carnildo screws up, he'll be quickly deadminned, and any damage can and will be easily repaired. I'd like to see this treatment extend to other RfAs that haven't passed on ridiculous grounds. Ambuj.Saxena's and my second one come to mind. — Werdna talk criticism 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting standpoint. Can I start listing failed candidates here? ;-) This would give sysophood a strong boost I believe. --Ligulem 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I don't think this is a retroactive thing. I personally think that a promotion should occur if the candidate gets simple majority support and a bureaucrat is willing to promote. — Werdna talk criticism 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with that majority idea. Just a bit odd to see it happen on Carnildo's RfA the first time. But well, let's give it a try. I was puzzled numerous times in the past why the hell oppose voices count three or four times the support ones. All I want is that we have a uniform standard. Otherwise RfA is going to be a cabal election ;-) I see my chances for sysophood are rising <looking innocent> --Ligulem 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that in any official capacity. Heck, I'm not even an admin yet (although a lot of people think I am). And RfA is already a cabal election. There's a group of RfA-dwellers that you have to please to become an admin. — Werdna talk criticism 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what we have beaureaucrats for. Personally I'd be happy for 'reapplication for adminship requires a lower support threshold' to become a bcrat guideline. The Land 09:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think that idea may have merit, however those who have been involuntarily desysopped may require additional sensitivity. — Werdna talk criticism 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No. No double standards. --Ligulem 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a very encouraging initiative by the bureaucrats. Nothing makes me more ashamed of Wikipedia than the disgusting rabble that RFA has become. Bureaucrats should take the initiative and aware the bit on merit. --Tony Sidaway 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgo re-RfA if Arbcom says so?

"Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure..." OK, fair enough. Should, in future, what is supposed to be a temporary desysop not be brought to RfA but simply remain filed with the arbcom until they re-sysop at their discretion? Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this is fine. It's actually preferable to have a formalized means of skirting RfA, then to have an RfA nom and ignore long-standing promotion standards. Marskell 09:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom already has descretion to exactly do that. If they send Wikipedians to RfA again, then this is their decision. --Ligulem 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? So why was the community bothered with a scarring charade of an RFA at all?

Agree with Marskell. The ArbCom are prepared to reinstate Carnildo on a probationary basis on their own authority, without reference to the community? OK, fine, they have the authority to do that, and they were the ones who desysopped him. But to first bother the community with a charade of an RFA is disgraceful. An unusually bothersome RFA it turned out to be, too, which has left scars of its own. Arbs and bureaucrats, have you considered that it would have looked a little better if the RFA had today been declared to have failed, and you had then gone on to reinstate Carnildo in say a month or so, without any reference to the community? This was done in the worst possible way. I feel like turning in my bit. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

My sense is the 'crats decided 63% was borderline, so they looked to the ArbCom ruling for guidance. For me, I think 63% was a bit low to be borderline, but our concern now should be about what's best for Wikipedia, not about mending hurt feelings or punishing people. Is there any good way to de-bit Carnildo? Perhaps there should be, but I'm not aware of one. Would Wikipedia be better off if Bishonen was bitless? I don't think so. The only thing that does worry me, is does this set any really bad precedents? I don't think so, but I'd like to be more certain of that. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully by this time next year ArbCom will have developed its admin sanctions a bit. Do you remember the nightmare when Stevertigo (IIRC) was desyssopped and made to go through an RfA immediately? At least things have moved on a bit since then - I am sure that they will do in future. The Land 09:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What everybody seems to be forgetting is that the RfA had a simple majority. Therefore, you were pleasing more people by promoting than you were pissing off. This 75-80pc rubbish is unnecessary, and only a guideline. — Werdna talk criticism 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Even if you think that Carnildo will make a good admin, which I do, that doesn't mean the end justifies the means. I can imagine that even Canildo might be wondering if becoming an admin was worth the stress it's caused. But we are where we are. It's a pity it wasn't a clearer result, but it wasn't. Either way, Taxman has said this is probationary and ArbCom will review in 2 months, so people will have a chance to make a submission then. Peace be with you. Ben Aveling 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - perhaps someone could make it a bit clearer for me whether this is a decision by the ArbCom, or by a subset of our bureaucrats. I'd be interested to see the views of the other members of the ArbCom and of our other bureaucrats.

Is this decision specific to this case, or will it be applied more generally? Will "probationary" adminship be granted to other failed RFAs in the 60-70% band going forward? Will previous failed RFAs be reviewed so "probationary" adminship can be granted to previous candidates who failed on such technical grounds being unable to demonstrate a community consensus? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)