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)

Like they say "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:31, 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)

I agree that we should be more open to promote admins and forget about that magic 70% wall (or whatever it was) we had in the past. What strikes me, is that this standard change had to happen exactly on Carnildo's RfA. We had a bunch of RfA's in the past which would have passed given this new standard you are doing now. One such example was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth. I'm sure we can find more to reevaluate. My point is that this sweeping change in standards should be applied equally. --Ligulem 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not oppose that. Danny 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I said trust is difficult to regain - not impossible. There is nothing "problematic" about being cautious. If you read my comments on the RFA, I did not ignore the good work done, and I agree that past mistakes are forgivable. No stain should be indelible, but I believe that the user should at least have made a good effort to clean it themselves, or at least acknowledge that they got dirty. I do not believe that happened here, which is why I did not have the confidence in the candiate to support. As the rfa showed, a lot of other users did not have that confidence either. I also hope that the bureaucrats' assessment included the cost vs benefit of this promotion - was the addition of one extra admin worth the potential damgae to the trust of the community in them? Personally I think not. Regards, MartinRe 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't the sensible thing to do in that case be to simply drop the whole "trust from other editors" bit? We can have a process that attempts to determine (however crudely) whether a nominee enjoys the trust of the community, or we can have a process whereby we attempt to determine if the nominee is a good editor or trusted by the ArbCom/bureaucrats/WMF/whatever; but to run the latter in the guise of the former is the worst possible scenario, since it produces enormous resentment among editors who were under the (apparently mistaken) impression that their explicitly stated distrust of the candidate would have some actual impact on the process. Kirill Lokshin 11:58, 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 award the bit on merit. Whether an editor can pass a "beauty contest" is of little use in deciding whether he'll wield the bit well. --Tony Sidaway 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly, strongly agree. I'd like to see this happen more often. — Werdna talk criticism 11:56, 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)

Fuck: Did ALoan just blank his userpage and talk? Tell me I'm mixing up red and blue rather than seeing a great editor leave for the third time in 24 hrs. Marskell 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, this has been a dark, dark day. We've lost three admins in a day. It's Black Tuesday for Wikipedia. Yanksox 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a read of meatball:GoodBye. It's nothing more than theatrics. If he wants to leave in bloody protest, he's more than welcome to. He'll be back within a month. — Werdna talk criticism 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Touché, I forgot about that. Yanksox 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes in standards aren't easy. A few clapping doors are inevitable ;-). Although I wonder if they all manage to keep their doors closed forever (turn on your sock detector! ;-). --Ligulem 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mightily for your wisdom, Werdna. Who'd want to come back with glibness of this sort abounding? As for theatrics, he wasn't acting with eight successful FACs. To lose some like ALoan over bullshit here makes for a dark day indeed. Marskell 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to allow Wikipedia to be bullied into doing something because somebody gets pissed off about something ridiculous like this. Did you read the link I gave you? — Werdna talk criticism 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between allowing yourself to be bullied and showing due sensitivity to people who've contributed to this place. Happening to intersect with three people who have left today is making me morose—responding with "Good, screw off" is no better than "We'll do whatever you want, if you stay." As for the meatball essay, pass the tomato sauce. Marskell 12:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

People in this community constantly overreact. I live in Pittsburgh, where it can be dark and cloudy for weeks at a stretch. I can live with it, and so can we. Everyone needs to get over this- now- and keep doing what we're here for, which is to write an encyclopedia. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're so tied up in your own importance that you'll leave over someone else getting administrative rights over your objection, we really don't want you here. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we all make little goodbyes from time to time. A while ago you said "I no longer want anything to do with the community" [2] and yet, here you are. I tried to leave too at one point - it's tougher than it looks :) Haukur 12:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, that wasn't a goodbye; Kelly sometimes uses "community" in a more specific sense than might be immediately apparent. Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, but even under Kelly's limited definition it is the community that is discussing things on this talk page. In any case my point is that we've all had stressful times where we want to leave. We should speak gently of people in that situation, hope that they come back and make it as easy for them as possible to come back. We should not shout 'good riddance' and link to a hackneyed essay saying that their goodbye is a "passive agressive ... vehicle for violence". Haukur 12:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that I took an actual break at that point. And in that case I was pissed at "the community" because they were attacking me almost continuously. That wasn't a case of my not getting my way or feeling that my "rights" had been trampled by some person "disregarding process"; it was a case of me being subjected to huge heaping volumes of uncivil monkeyshit from "the community". Let's keep perspective here. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You were upset because many people didn't want you as head clerk and some were quite vehement about it. That's understandable. You made some posts where you lambasted the community and said you were leaving it. That's also understandable. Then you took a break from the community for a while. Understandable, probably a good idea. Then you came back. That's great! All I'm saying is that it's okay to have some empathy for people who exercize their right to leave, even if they post a goodbye message and even if they end up only taking a break. Attacking ALoan as a "drama queen" [3] which we're better off without was just completely uncalled for. Now he's clarified that it isn't even this issue which caused him to leave. As far as I can see no-one has left over this issue - but if they do then they're perfectly entitled to and we should not villify them. Haukur 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Smack bang on the nail's head. We can't allow self-important people like this to bully their way into having other people's admin privileges taken away. — Werdna talk criticism 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but then we allow people who spitefully block three good-faith editors indefinitely to get their admin tools back. Also adminship is not a privilegy, and I'm going to vote oppose on your future RfA just for that.  Grue  15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, please don't imply that people are upset because their personal objections were ignored. People are upset because of a perception that the actions of an authoritarian few violate the normal standards and practices of the community. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, it is not helpful to miscast the complaints of others or suggest that their opinions are not welcome here. Dragons flight 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whistle whistle!! Guys were getting off track, off topic and a little personal here some of the above comments aren't really needed... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

People, people, it was not 60 some percent support. We didn't just look at it and say yeah, it's 60%, but we want to promote anyway. There were a huge number of supports and a lot of sockpuppetting on the oppose side. So we read what the community really had to say, not just what came up on paper. When we say extenuating circumstances we meant it. Give us some credit that we didn't throw consensus out the window, we just didn't read it based on a narrow reading of the percentage. - Taxman ^Talk 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly can I say that I personally accept the decision of the crats (especially Danny) to reinstate Carnildo, espeically if it is on a probationary basis. However I would question the decision. Not with respect to Carnildo's re-adminship that decision is based on these crats basing personal trust into Carnildo - based on his recent record. Rather I would question the lack of consultation. I know such a decision ultimately rests with the Beurocrats but they must have known this would be a controversial promotion. Rather than just promoting I wonder whether closing the vote on time, then announcing their plans to reinstate on the trial period to the community for the to respond would have been better. Sure there would have been many similar comments those above but I wonder how many others would have supported the idea of a promotion on a trial basis. This kind of action could undermine the Beaurocrats respected and responsible position in our community - a position that really requires openness and discussion rather than decisions inside a 'closed room'

As I have said I fully support your choice to re-promote Carnildo and I genuinely hope and believe he has changed (and learnt his lesson) but I do feel slightly let down by the lack of respect for the rest of our community. Please talk to us...--Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(last note was an edit conflict and I missed Taxmans latest reply) I find it positive that you chose to look at the discussion rather than the percentages. But then I would hope that happens anyway ;-) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just how much additional consultation do you require? The bureaucrats had a whole page full of discussion on the merits of the candidate. Do you feel that somehow you lacked a sufficient opportunity to make your opinion known? Kelly Martin (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Err yes but when was the possibility of promotion under review for 2 months suggested? Did I miss that somewhere? It would at least have been nice to hear about it as an option! Thats all Im saying --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll give you some credit, as it was a good judgement. Also, this may have already been addressed, but can it not be argued that the 60% result showed there was no consensus to remove adminship from said editor? I see it as essentially a request-for-deadminship, as the adminship was not removed by consensus in the first place. Also, it has to be said, that if every admin had an RFA right now, many would fail, because being an admin does not make you any friends, and yet the system still manages to work somehow. Martin 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "the system still manages to work somehow". No it doesn't. Many admins would fail? Only those would fail whose actions are rejected by community. As long as Wikipedia is democracy, all admins should be reelected. If it is an oligarchy (as Tony and Kelly like to see it), then we should abolish talk pages and shut up. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's convenient, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Martin 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"We believe that special consideration should be given to anyone that Danny likes". "The rest of you can just stuff your heads down a hole." -Splash - tk 13:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I have never had any interaction that I remember with Carnildo, and considering that I was asked to give an opinion on his RfA less than two hours before it was over, not even knowing that there was such an RfA before that, I am at a loss as to what your basis is. Or is it just that you prefer personal attacks when things don't go your way. Or should I assume that your comment was made in "good faith"? Danny 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. "We believe that special consideration should be given to any RfA that Danny likes. The rest of you can just stuff your heads down a hole". Better? Different? -Splash - tk 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it would be wise of the bureaucrats to work hard to remove heat from this discussion and add light. Some of the above is definitely fuel for the heat. Obviously this is a contentious decision. We won't progress things in a good way by throwing knives at each other. --Durin 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone please remember to remain calm. I know some folks think RFC is a sham, but one on this issue might actually be useful (I'd love to see Bishonen's statement written as an outside view.) This isn't the end of the world, but I think many editors want clarification on this issue, and rightfully so. I think this was handled in the worst possible way and I want to know who actually thought this was a good idea and who didn't. Friday (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I acted without thinking through how the sudden red links would alarm some people. I have added a comment so they are blue. This, incidentally, was not the trigger, although it was one of the straws in the wind. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some other points of discussion on this

---

I'd like to raise several points which I don't think have been addressed above:

• Was Carnildo offered to reject decision?: I'm curious as to whether any bureaucrat contacted Carnildo prior to making this decision public. From a reading of his talk page, it does not appear so. It had to be obvious that this decision was going to be controversial, and would most definitely place Carnildo in a most searing public light. Such a decision is virtually a sentence for Carnildo, rather than something to feel good about. Even if he clears ArbCom's review of him in two months, he will always be viewed as something of a pariah among a significant set of users. By promoting him under such a harshly controversial decision, this negative view has and will be sharply focused. He will never be able to fully leave this limelight. He should have been given an opportunity to reject the decision before it was implemented. It does not appear he was given such.

• Full consideration of outcome:I'm concerned that the bureaucrats may not have made a careful consideration of the consequences of this decision. While I agree 100% that it was within their purview to act as they did, the impact of the decision could not have been seen as anything other than extremely controversial. Apparently we've had a number of admins leave the project over this decision. This is both unfortunate and highly predictable. It isn't bullying. It's simply people who are disgusted by what is perceived as abuse of a well established process. We should respect all users who contribute here in good faith. These users who have left over this certainly fall well within that group. Their departure is a significant loss to the project. In the past year, we've had two bureaucrats step down over less constroversial decisions. Certainly the bureaucrats had to have some inkling that this decision would cause a very significant amount of fallout, even if not among themselves. I'm curious if the bureaucrats considered this, and weighed it against the value of promoting Carnildo.

• Carnildo should not be a special case: Carnildo can indeed be desysopped if things turn out other than the bureaucrats expect. But, if that is a significant basis of the decision then RfA should be changed to permit this sort of access to admin functions for all would-be administrators, and not just a lone person who is well known in the community. Carnildo should not be a special case.

• RfA descending into anarchy?: The bureucrats have certainly stated the case that they acted within the bounds expected of them. I fully support that they in fact did do so. However, as can be seen from a number of comments above, the community's expectations of them were radically different than what transpired. Over the last few months, there's been a gradual increase in the division of people within the RfA community. There's a significant number of people who feel RfA is broken, and I would venture to guess that virtually every one of them feel that this decision by the bureaucrats was 100% spot on. On the other side, there's a significant number of people who feel the process works, and works better than any alternative that has been proposed (and there's been a huge number of proposals). By making this decision, the bureaucrats have starkly drawn a line between these two groups. There's distrust from both sides, insults from both sides, and heated debate from both sides. I fear now that even if the system we have at RfA is as perfect as we can get, it will not matter; there is now such a strong divide between these two groups that RfA as it is now may crumble. What I think will evolve in its place is a process more in line with how one group feels than with both. Regardless of how good that one group feels about it, this will be a very negative outcome. If the bureaucrats hope to avoid this, they need to go to signficant effort to reinstill trust in the consensus based nature of RfA, which has been seriously undermined by this decision. It isn't enough to simply say "we acted within the bounds". You have to rise above that, and lead where others can follow.

--Durin 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The only sense in which they acted "within the bounds" is in the sense that noone knew the bounds might exist that this decision could be outside of. The bureaucrats were never scrutinised for the ability to make up arbitrary rules as they went along, to specify probationary adminships, to haul people before arbcom on their own, minority-collective authority. Noone expected the bureaucrats to dramatically alter the approach at the last moment without telling anyone, either support or oppose, that their !votes and comments would have a radically different meaning (i.e. basically none at all) under the scheme they were scheming. What purpose does de-sysopping and RfA serve if three bureaucrats have some beer and say "nah, this looks fun, let's do it"? -Splash - tk 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I used to think that bcrats were here to judge consensus on RfAs. If the ycan seea consensus here I am amazed. They are clearly basing their decision on something else. The Land 15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add one more:

• What is the role of Bureaucrats?: No, really. From one perspective Bureaucrats exist to judge consensus and this is their only function in RFA. Though some of the statements above discuss consensus and votes, many talk about a broader picture that might be called "doing the right thing". Certainly Taxman et al.'s initial statement is phrased primarily in terms of what the result ought to be rather than judging what the result was. Likewise, the invention of probationary sysophood is a rather novel compromise by which the Bureaucrats might be said to be imposing their will on the community rather than simply interpreting community will. It strikes me that this action declares with it an potential shift in the role of Bureaucrats from promoting "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" (WP:BUR) to some standard based on doing what the Bureaucrats believe is right, even when that conflicts with traditional community views on promotion. Such a shift will undoubtedly please some and anger others.

--Dragons flight 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We are clearly well beyond the territory of conventional arbitration and beaureaucracy policy here. Bcrats and ArbCom are of course entitled to Ignore All Rules and I am sure the people involved wer aware, at least in the back of their minds, that is what they were doing. I don't have too much of a problem with RfA for new admins. I think the community as a whole needs to decide what sanctions for misbehaving admins should be available and how they are enforced: I don't think it is possible for any former admin, voluntarily or involuntarily deadminned, to go through a 'normal' RfA because enough people are wound up that the decision will end up in a result of No Consensus (as this effectively did), and probably with a lot of hurt feelings all round.

• Perhaps ArbCom itself needs to consider reapplications for adminship from people it has formerly sacked?
• Perhaps BCrats shoud consider them but in a process based on RFC rather than RFA?
• Perhaps no-one should be deadmineed permanently but always allowed to reapply to ArbCom every two months?

Regards, The Land 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of sockpuppeting do people not understand? I am dumfounded that no one is simply saying, hmm, maybe they knew what they were doing. On top of that we have the extraordinary circumstances of the arbcom having taken away his adminship and none of them opposing him getting it back. If people want pure numbers to make them happy, without questionable votes on both sides the numbers were within range it didn't take much special consideration to send this one over. But apparently people would rather have fun sniping at those making decisions rather than trying to help with anything. By that I'm not referring to constructive comments, but the insinuation without evidence that this was because we were chummy with Carnildo, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If sockpuppeting was the real issue here, you could have saved lots of grief by making this clear in the explanation given. Friday (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Was it really only sockpuppeting? I've heard many difference possibilities; none was officially given. How many opposes were suspected socks? Three, four, maybe five. Take away another ten or so for opposing based on the bot? Were "bot's stupid" and "no admin needed to run bot" discounted? There are many possible interpretations as no official reasoning was given, except "we believe ArbCom only meant desysopping as temporary". – Chacor 16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It would need to have been massive sockpuppeting (which, looking down the list of names, doesn't seem obvious, at least to me) to significantly change the number here. I'm guessing, given the original bcrat remarks here, that certain reasons for opposing the nomination were given less consideration than others; perhaps the bureaucrats might be able to make some general comments about how they regarded the various point made? Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if Carnildo had a supermajority of support, given the strength of arguments given against him, I'd be surprised if you could see a consensus. However, I'm no bcrat (can't even spell it properly). The Land 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• (to Taxman) I don't think pure numbers are at issue. Further, saying in essence "We know what we are doing, trust us" is tantamount to refusing any constructive criticism of decisions made by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats were put into their role to evaluate consensus on RfA. That in no way means you are above any negative feedback. The decision had to have been seen as controversial before it was implemented. There should be no...no...surprise that people are questioning the decision. Rather, there should be considerable effort to explain this decision, in detail, to help calm down the situation as opposed to criticizing people for their positions. The onus is on the bureaucrats to explain their decision in a rational, thoughtful way. The onus is not on the users to lockstep with the bureaucrats and not question their decision. --Durin 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Taxman: kindly go and reread your first few posts in this thread. See how you only started talking about sockpuppetry later, after people (oh so surprisingly) expressed some unhappiness? The initial announcement said things like "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", not "there was massive sockpuppetry in the oppose column". Why was that? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• BoG got it right. By bringing out the sockpuppet allegations now, the Bcrats involved are discrediting themselves. You're making it sound more like you're saying "Well, we decided the outcome amongst ourselves, for reasons only we're allowed to know. And, we'll make up a series of increasingly-implausible sounding excuses for why we decided the way we did." And you wonder why people are raising eyebrows at this? Damn. Friday (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I, and undoubtedly other editors, don't vote in an RfA if it is well outside the usual threshhold and I have no particular inclination to contradict the way it is headed—after all, I am not going to investigate every single candidate to little effect. If there had been some information that an otherwise failing ~60% would in this case result in a sysopping, I would have looked into an obviously controversial candidate further, where otherwise I would not have any particular reason to do the extensive examination that would be necessary to write a comment that could possibly convince a 15% increase in support. If the level of support needed to pass is going to be changed for a certain RfA, that needs to be advertised beforehand. If the lower support that could have resulted had it been clear that 60% was passing, would also have been disregarded, then there is no reason to have an RfA in the first place.

Also, I looked through just about all of the opposing users' contributions, and there are no sockpuppets; perhaps they were deleted, perhaps they are forged signatures, but I have looked at the page history and they are not all forged signatures, and there are nevertheless supernumerous opposes from well-known users. There doesn't seem to be any unusual sockpuppetry in this RfA that would warrant a deviation, in that respect, from the usual RfA practice. —Centrx→talk • 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, User:Mostly Rainy is an EddieSegoura puppet... oh, wait, he voted support. Centrx, I think you are entirely correct about the tendencies of voters not to take the time if an RfA is clearly failing; I did not actually vote here either (to try to avoid stressing myself out, truth be told) but certainly wish I had in retrospect. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider participating in the WikiProject on Adminship

Discussion there of alternatives to the RFA we know and love. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

...which still has no effort to determine what is wrong with RfA as it stands now. --Durin 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of things, mostly minor that's true, but that would be nice to change. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)