Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Feel free to join the discussion on the future of Requests for adminship process at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Everyone's comments are welcome!

Questions about RFA

1. Are we allowed to support or oppose ourselves?
2. Are we allowed to ask friends to support or oppose us?
3. If our RFA is denied can we make another one in a few months?
4. How many edits would you say a user should have before becoming an admin?
5. What should I do to have a good chance of becoming an admin?

If anyone else has any other questions feel free to post them here. Mattl2001 04:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To make the answers as succinct as possible:

1. No.
2. No, and may even earn yourself opposition. See WP:CANVASS.
3. Yes, definitely.
4. Numbers fluctuate, and numbers should not matter, so all I will say is: enough for us to tell us you're experienced.
5. Please read WP:GRFA.

Hope that helps. —Kurykh 04:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)

1. No. Accepting the nomination is your own declaration of support; refusing the RfA is the oppose (and instantly renders it moot).
2. Canvassing is frowned upon; I've seen a couple of RfAs fail on that basis.
3. Yes, though if you haven't addressed the concerns raised in the first RfA, the second isn't any more likely to pass.
4. I'd say that nothing below a couple of thousand has a snowball's chance in hell. Even then, though, it's more the balance of edits (mainspace to project space) and the quality of the edits that matters more than sheer number (in theory, at least).
5. Involve yourself in the process of the project, such as AfD. Making sound, policy-grounded arguments for or against deletion will help show that you are able to properly interpret the project's policies and guidelines and apply them to various situations.

You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Admin coaching before submitting your RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. What he said. —Kurykh 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reform proposal trial runs?

OK, so there's been a lot of talk going around about this reform, and the discussion seems to be making some progress. Do you think it is appropriate to run trials or test runs of some of the proposals that seem to be getting good reviews, or in theory seem to be a good idea? I only suggest that because how else would we know which ones work and which do not. The only problem would be whether these RfAs would "count," in the sense that the RfA candidate would actually be promoted if the system allows for it. (I personally would say yes, but I bring it up because there might be some objections.) One possible candidate might be the Proposal_by_Carcharoth which sounds very good in theory and discussion has been going well.

So what does everyone think? Nothing will happen unless we just give it a go. Maybe a formal proposal would be written up for the "good" ones and a trial RfA or two would be run for that proposal. So how can we do this? _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me - we won't really know if these proposals will work or not unless we try them. I would say that the Proposal_by_Carcharoth is a good one to try (though, so are some others). For this to go ahead, a formal proposal would need to be written up; in particular answering the questions given by Jared (talk · contribs). Then, the technical side of it would need to be worked out, for example how will the random jury selection work? Finally, it would need to be worked out how the trial would work, in particular, who would be the candidate? After watching some recent experiments on RfA, I think this needs to be thought of carefully. Camaron1 | Chris 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be a bad idea to make the results binding. I have large concerns about the inherent fairness of some of those proposals, so I do not want people promoted based on them. -Amarkov moo! 18:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed, until there is a very large consensus indeed I don't think any of these proposals should be binding. People from every part of Wikipedia should participate in the decision for a change so major before it is taken, as who becomes admin effects the whole of Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to a simulated run, but nobody should be promoted short of an established method, I suppose it depends on how far the proposed method deviates from conventional practice. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It does depend on that. However, every proposal (bar one that simply mandates more discussion among bureaucrats) deviates very significantly from conventional practice. Nearly all are "don't allow supporting comments", "don't allow discussion on the RfA page", "ignore reasons that I think are bad", or trial adminship. -Amarkov moo! 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Any "proposed method" is dead before it starts. (proposals Do Not Work (tm) ). In fact, if you would like to see certain practices rejected before they become common, you would do well to write them out as a policy proposal. (you will have ~8:1 odds that the practice will be rejected)

If you'd like your system to have a chance, try some experiments, possibly off-wiki. If the system works the way you thought it did, run it as an alternative alongside RfA. If it scales better than RFA, it will slowly take over, with RfA only acting in a vestigial fashion. --Kim Bruning 18:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC) this method works for any other process you would like to improve on too :-)

When a proposal is truly needed the proposal has a much better chance. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is obviously a need for a change to the RfA system, and step one of soliciting possibly solutions for the problem(s) is underway. What I suggested here was to phase in step two, which would put into trial a few of the possibilities. I'll have to agree that, yes, maybe granting adminship on a trial would not be such a good idea. But otherwise, the trial should run normally. What I'm really asking here, though, is should we go ahead and try out one or two of the possible solutions, just to see how they'd actually work if implemented? If so, then maybe I'll start writing a full-out proposal for one of them. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  02:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So long as nobody is promoted based on trials, I have no objections to running them on the main RfA page. It's been shown repeatedly that there is simply no other way to get participation in trial formats otherwise. -Amarkov moo! 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you need someone to be the candidate for a fake RFA that works like a real one, I'd be happy to be the guinea pig. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 02:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to be a guinea pig as well, if I seem like a suitable candidate. –Pomte 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be one provided that the results aren't binding and it's a process I think might be good. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I've started expanding Carcharoth's proposal, but I've already run into some snags as far as how we'd get users picked. I think this would be a great job for a bot (i.e. a bot sees that a new RfA candidate has been placed on the RfA page and then sends a message to X number of people randomly.). How we would do it, though, would be tough. On this subpage of mine I started writing it out, but as you can see the specifics are hardly specific. Maybe someone who wants to help could look at this and try to do a little more explaining. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mock RFAs show nothing, nobody would spend their time and energy arguing on mock RFAs, neither vandals and trolls nor POV-pushers would appear on mock RFAs. The result will be straightforward, bleak and boring discussion unrepresentative to the real life. We have to try schemes in real life. Lets select a scheme (e.g. Carcharoth's proposal), ensure that most of the readers of this talk page agree for an experiment, ensure that bureaucrats agree to promote if the experimental RFA succeed, find a candidate agreed to be the guinea pig and go ahead. Alex Bakharev 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But can we really run a binding trial over the concerns of people who think that a system is inherently unfair (or just stupid)? -Amarkov moo! 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

One could equally ask how we can run binding discussions presently over the concerns of people who think that the current system is inherently unfair (or just stupid). Really what is called for is careful selection of the method to be trialled; that is, only the more promising and broadly approved methods should be trialled. --bainer (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree that trials should not be binding, but they should still be well organised with a full proposal written before it is tried. Though saying that, the current attempts at writing up Carcharoth's proposal have not been easy. I can try and help out - but I am not sure where to start, and I have other things to do. Camaron1 | Chris 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trial RFAs can be quite enlightening, both showing what to do, and what not to do, like this example. Some parts were fun, some parts were a tad too much work. I this case, we learned that possibly refactoring RFA isn't enough ^^;; (though have fun adding questions still, if you like :-) ) --Kim Bruning 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather taken aback to see my proposal being mentioned this prominently! :-) I'd like to thanks Jared for expanding the proposal on a subpage of his user page (User:Jared/sandbox3). I would comment over there, but the discussion page for the sandbox is a broken (double) redirect pointing to (presumably) the last bit that got moved from there. The main problems seem to be selecting random users, which is why I think the way to select the committee (let's not call it a jury - wrong overtones) is to have a list that RfA regulars (and others, of course) add themselves to. Quite how long this list would have to be, I don't know. But then the set-up at Portal:Middle-earth/Random-article could be used to select people from such a list, using dates or something to make the generation automatic. Or maybe something more robust could be devised. Once that happens, then it might work. The key thing is that this system would be a discussion first and foremost, followed by a "committee vote", followed by a bureaucrat checking things worked and promoting the candidate. Whether the percentages of a vote involving 50-150 people will translate to a vote of around 20 people instead, is problematic. In effect, what this system does is temporarily appoint random community members to bureaucrat-like positions where they are effectively asked to judge the mood of the community (that rabble discussing things on the floor), and then the real bureaucrat judges whether the randomly appointed members have got it right or not. This shares the pressure of final selection between the temporary committee and the bureaucrat, emphasises discussion, avoids pile-on voting, and should be more transparent. To go into even more detail, to avoid problems with inactive users (even those who put their name on a list may go inactive), the users on the list have to certify their presence within (say) a day, otherwise they get dropped and the list moves up. Once (say) 20 people have certified they are present, the RfA committee has formed. Hmm. Once you get into details, you see the advantages of the rather simple system currently operating. Anyone (well, almost anyone) can vote. No need to wait. Just pick a random week-long snapshot opinion poll of the diverse Wikipedia community, and pass to the bureaucrat for closing. The main disadvantage I can see with this is if the "committee selection list" ends up being so small that the people on it effectively become bureaucrat-lites. That and the daunting amount of bureaucracy. Though RfA was once simpler than it is now. It all comes back to the scale problem. <sigh> Oh well, that's my thoughts. Let's see how things develop from here. Hope I haven't killed off my own proposal! :-/ Carcharoth 18:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect, so if you want to comment on that talk page of mine, you may. In retrospect, this proposal, while good, seems to be complicated, and overcoming the obsticles may be difficult and may not be worth all the trouble just to ensure we get the best possible opinions on candidates. That said, I would still certainly like to see this run in a trial, at least one time, just to see how it would actually work. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  18:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The biggest obstacle I see is to determine the criteria for the jurors. Once we have that, I can make a script to generate a list and we can possibly try it out? --ST47Talk 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I've just realised what that weird Wikipolitical Compass thread is really for! Follow some of the links to the raw data, and you find a list of voters here. The criteria used there were: "all voters who voted in at least 5 RfAs from January 1, 2007 to May 7, 2007". How about using that list as the starting point? You'd have to try and avoid users that have been banned or are no longer active, but that is dealt with by requiring people selected to confirm (within a set time period, say three days) that they are here. For now, maybe, just randomly select people from that list until you get 20 people confirmed and willing to take part in the experiment as the first "committee", then find a willing candidate guinea pig, then start the community discussion, let the committee vote, and see what the closing bureaucrat makes of it all! If people like the idea, the concept can be refined further with more experiments. Carcharoth 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly there is a strange logic to this system, as on the one hand you have a community discussion and vote that anone can contribute to, and at the end of it one person (the bureaucrat) judges borderline cases. Will a middle-ground of a committee help in borderline cases? Isn't that what bureaucrats do anyway (do they, as a 'committee', discuss borderline cases)? Carcharoth 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Would 20 be enough? I have a way to make any amount of random people from that list. Of course, if this works, we would want a truly random sample of eligible users - perhaps users can opt-in for 'jury duty', but that's looking too far ahead. Is 20 enough? Is the message I'm putting at User:ST47/JuryDuty good? --ST47Talk 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Opt-in? No, that would corrupt the concept beyond belief right from the very start. Picaroon (Talk) 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As the various rfa reform proposals go, this one sounds above average, mainly because it would be quite interesting to watch. But for the final outcome to actually, significantly differ from what we have today, the "jurors" need to be non-regulars. The proposal is bound to fail if we get the same people who constantly type "Oppose, edit summary usage is only 70%" and "Support, because he already has a bunch of supports" as "jurors." I say we offer the job of "jury member" only to people who have never participated in a request for adminship before, so as to make sure they're not privy to the silliness this place displays on a daily basis, and will therefore be genuinely shocked at the sort of comments I mention above. Using regulars would be like having your gardener, your banker, and your aunt appointed to a jury deliberating whether to convict you. Picaroon (Talk) 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but we're going to run out of potential jurors really fast. If we do do a random sampling, then the 50 sane voices can override the 10 regulars, but we can't say that some people are automatically out. --ST47Talk 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm running now against random users with settings of 100+ edits, and once we are finished, 100 jurors will be posted. Then, I'll manually check contribs to find any active users, and I'll run again if I need to until I have 100 potential jurors. If we want to go forward with this, we need a decision on how many jurors we need. I'm thinking that 100 should be good, we'd have varying opinions, and that's about the average amount of comments nowadays. The only way to go from there is down, maybe choose 50-80 users to ask? --ST47Talk 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having a jury if ultimately the bureaucrats decide anyway (as outlined in the proposal). Either you have a jury, and then its decision is binding, otherwise why this complexity? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, to prevent those who always vote from saying stuff like "Oppose, edit summary usage is only 70%" and "Support, because he already has a bunch of supports" from doing it, and to make it the community process it should be. Let's see how the trial goes. --ST47Talk 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I have an easier method of getting a list, it will just take some time to get a list of active users and then I just have to filter it by edits and get a random selection. --ST47Talk 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that a jury won't complain if editors fail to use edit summaries. It would be a better use of one's time to write the encyclopedia than sitting on juries I think. A jury won't make a difference except in borderline cases anyway, which would be better served by a handful of bureaucrats discussing among themselves. The latter would be a more efficient use of manpower, with the same results I'd guess. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But since the jury is of random users, such as the group I'm about to post, it is less likely to be regulars. The jury is replacing the vote, you realize, because it sounds to me as though you think the jury is replacing the crats? --ST47Talk 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a group ready and can generate 100/50/however many users from it at random, should we contact User:R, the first volunteer above? I'll be back in about 7 hours. --ST47Talk 10:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out my comments at User talk:ST47/JuryDuty. I personally don't think this is quite ready yet (much as I'd love to see what happens when you notify 100 random users - you might provoke quite a firework display). I would strongly urge waiting until some more input comes in. The big stumbling point at the moment seems to be whether to go totally random (seems too much like spamming to me), or select randomly from a (fairly large) list of people who are more likely to be prepared to take part in a week-long debate (or at least vote at the end of it). What will be interesting is how RfA regulars will adapt to this system. You also need to sort out the layout of the RfA before going live. Where do you list the 'committee' members? Where do they sign? Where does the community add their voice? How do you keep the community and committee discussions separate? Should the committee give reasons or not, or should they just participate in the main discussion and then cast their votes? You could also have a stripped down version where you have a nomination statement, candidate statement, and questions, and then the community are restricted to oppose reasons only, the committee votes, and the bureaucrat decides. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy of this proposal is expanding too much, in my opinion. I can't see a simple way to do this and I am close to disowning it! :-( But if a simple trial run can be worked out, it would be good to see what happens. Carcharoth 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think this is ready for prime time. Seems like there's a lot of unanswered questions. RxS 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we miss nothing by trying it. Hell, why don't we just have a less known admin undergo another RfA as proxy? Nothing to lose, and no one is really put in jeopardy. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

General I'd agree, but if there's something to this (which I'm not convinced about, but anyway..) and it's given a trial before it's really ready and fails badly it may not get another chance. At this point it's still just an idea...it really needs some solid ground I think. RxS 18:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Carcharoth's proposal

OK, let us become serious, and list what needs doing.

1. How large is our panel? 100? 50?
2. How much support is needed? 80%? 75%? 67%?
3. Who is our guinea pig? Preferably someone who is already an admin, as David said?
4. How do we choose a panel? I used 100 edits and active within the last week, is that OK? We can set something up where any user who edits in a 24-hour period is added to a list, and chosen from at random?
5. How long is it open? 1 week?
6. Do we need a quorum? 20?
7. Can we contact users? Should a bot undergo a WP:BRFA? Should we ask for permission on WP:VP?
8. I have a template in my userspace at User:ST47/RfA test, and it needs updating and further enhancement. Do we keep the neutral section? Do we need both General comments and Discussion?
9. Do we allow a 3 day period of discussion before the panel submits their votes? Is that too bothersome for panelists? Can we encourage, but not require, it? If so, should we?

--ST47Talk 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with being the guinea pig for this. I'm already an admin, so it being non-binding isn't an issue, especially if I fail. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I made this into another section. Anyway, I'll reply to your questions/comments.

1. I would suggest that a panel of 75 people should be contacted. This is an average/high-average approximation for how many people respond in general on RfAs.
2. As far as passing goes, I think it would go against consensus to suggest that there's a cut off point. But again, if we're using a 'crat to close these (or even an admin) then it would be left up to them to decide what consensus is.
3. For a guinea pig, yeah, maybe a recently promoted admin, so we can have something to compare our results with (sort of like a control for an experiment).
4. The electorate should be as you suggested, or something very similar.
5. It should probably be left open for about a week, unless there is an obvious consensus and almost everyone has responded. Maybe 5 days. You have to remember, though, that in order for this to work, the person must check their messages (talk page), which not everyone is able to do every day.
6. We definitely need a quorum. I think 67% of the spammed group is sufficient, so if we're using 75 people, we would need 50 or more responses.
7. Can we get someone with a bot to let us use it for this purpose? That would be ideal. It would make the spamming task so much less of a pain.
8. As far as discussion goes, I say keep the user introduction paragraph and the questions, but dump the rest. It's too much like the current system. Maybe if we have one section devoted to where each user spammed will put his or her final vote and a good explanation as to why, and then another section for discussion where anyone can discuss anything. I don't think voting sections are necessary, because everyone is working sort of together, sort of.
9. I think that if only the discussion section is left open for 1 or 2 days, that would be ample time for anything of importance to come out into view. It's like the trial of a court case, whereby the only way the jurors can actually decide anything is by seeing what is laid out in front of them. Then, they can submit their opinions. That's good thinking!

_└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And responses...

1. OK, 75 users it is.
2. Leave the judging to the crats
3. Any objections to using EVula?
4. There were two suggestions, plus one more, I can either make it random requiring edits in the past week, make it random out of those who edited in the last 24 hours, or make it random but give each person more 'chances' based on the amount of edits, so those who are more involved would have a greater chance than those who edit once a week.
5. Maybe say 5 days, but it would obviously stay open until we get a quorum.
6. I think 67% is a little much, and that we can't expect that many, and was thinking more along the lines of 25-33%, however if we use the third option above for #4, we can probably bring it up, because we get more active users. Is getting more active users a blessing or a curse?
7. I can write a spambot easily.
8. Right. How about a discussion section as you said, and also a section where the panelists are listed and they can put a vote and comment?
9. I stole that from another proposal. 2 days of discussion would fit in perfectly with our 5 days stated at #5 above.

I am going to try one more panelist selection process, based around number of edits in a 24 hour period, so I'll need to collect data for a day or so. --ST47Talk 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Couple questions, how is success/failure measured in this trial? And why such a small pool? Wouldn't you get a better sample (and higher particapation) with a larger pool? And along the same line, is the pool weighted for higher amounts of edits per day? Won't that select for vandal fighters and bot operators? Nothing wrong with those folks, but they don't make for a good sample of the makeup of the range of wikipedia editors. RxS 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The crats can decide on whether there is consensus or not, that is their job ;), and are you saying that 75 users is too small? The reason I'm leaning towards editors with more edits is because the first panel test I did ended up mostly with people who wouldn't understand what's going on. --ST47Talk 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and bots are exempt. --ST47Talk 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But I'm talking about bot operators, they aren't exempt right, those who run bots from their accounts? Not to mention folks who run AWB and all the other tools available. My other question wasn't about consensus, my concerns are centered around pool sampling and what benchmarks for success/failure are considering for a trial. In other words, exactly how will you judge whether the trial was a success or a failure? RxS 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed reforms strike me as not good ideas, and as solutions looking for problems. I just don't see a need and would not support of the proposals. FeloniousMonk 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal's probably going to fail, but I'd like to see what happens when someone tries it. --ais523 10:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see a value in any of the proposals. One of the primary flaws in Carcharoth's proposal is the unlikelihood of even 5% of the 100 editors chosen having ever even run across any of the candidates. For example, on this discussion page I know only Kim and FM. If you really think editors are going to ferret out info on candidates they don't know, and will be able to look over 5K edits or more (the usual numbers of edits for most people in an RfA) and come to a proper conclusion, you probably believe in Santa Claus as well.

Another drawback to Carcharoth's proposal is that the RfA process should be democratic: picking a "jury", even at random, is hardly democratic. Besides, the addition of another layer of bureaucracy will hardly be a benefit and will likely be a drawback. What fuels the over-powering urge humans have for creating needless layers of bureaucratic bullspit, especially when those layers have no apparent value on only serve to gum up the works?

No offense guys, but I don't see the system as broken, and I don't see any need for any of these proposals. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that current format of RfA doesn't really represent community consensus. Only a vanishingly small number of active editors vote on any single RfA. You get a mix of RfA regulars (some of which are very conscientious, some less so), drive-by voters who rarely explain why they've turned up to vote, and those who know the candidate well. If anything, RfAs would be improved by a primary division of voters into (a) those who know the candidate and (b) those who don't know the candidate. Those who know the candidate would have to indicate where they have encountered the candidate. Those who don't know the candidate would either explain their reasoning (such as conscientious RfA regulars) or be exposed as a drive-by voter who can't be bothered to explain their vote. I admit this has little to do with 'my' proposal (and for the record I am unhappy with aspects of it as well, so much so that I'm trying to disassociate my name from it!), but the concept of using random voters might show people how random RfA is at the moment (or not). It seems that drive-by voting is grudgingly allowed as long as those voters remain in a minority.

And I think a far bigger problem is the lack of transparency over this 'random' selection process. I'm sure ST47's process is random, but it needs to be visibly so. Carcharoth 13:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Right, so as I understand it, there is a random jury for each RfA and these are the people who decide if the candidate passes or now, right, I have some major concerns with this...

1. I thought wikipedia was not supposed to be a bureaucracy? This seams far more bureaucratic than the current system. It's a far more complicated process which also only allows a limited community view i.e. the chosen few.
2. What if someone outside the jury has a major concern? How are they supposed to raise it? In a normal RfA, they could simply oppose with their reasons - allowing a transparent view of the candidate.
3. There are many valued contributors here who wouldn't have a clue what is required to be an administrator, why should we give these the sole ability to get a candidate promoted? I can see opposes for "spending too much time in wikipedia space". If this goes ahead - people should volunteer their services and then be picked at random from that group - we're not a court service.

Sorry to put a damper on it, I just feel this proposal is far worst than the current model. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the option you raise in point 3. As for point 2, people have always been able to raise major concerns, and that wouldn't change. Raising a major concern should be just that, raising it and discussing it. Not raising it and providing a single oppose vote. Major concerns should lead to discussion and several people deciding to support or oppose after the discussion. Finally, arriving in reverse order at point 1, the community can still express their view, but in the form of discussion on the RfA page, rather than voting. I also share your concerns with the excess bureaucracy in this proposal, but haven't been able to think of ways to reduce it (yet). Carcharoth 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• A major concern is when people do become eligible for this "panel". It would be tempting to simply generate a dozen accounts to increase the likelihood of being "picked". Note also that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors never participate in RFA and may have no idea whatsoever of what adminship entails, and will likely have better things to do than picking through the edits of someone they haven't even heard of. In other words this suggestion has a high likelihood of attracting sheep votes: the first participant says whatever for some arbitrary reason, and the others "tag along" because they don't know any better. It also preemptively ruin the chances of anyone doing the kind of useful work that makes you enemies, such as, oh I don't know, vandal fighting or tagging unfair-use images. >Radiant< 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You've convinced me. The stories below about how people find out about adminship (and why they stay) were interesting as well. I'm now going back to concluding that things aren't broken, and that the scale problem may be a problem, but if things plateau, then it'll be OK. Carcharoth 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In case the above was not clear, I'm "officially" (well, as official as Wikipedia gets) withdrawing my support for 'my' proposal. Others are more than welcome to carrying on developing the idea, but please call it something different (ie. don't refer to it using my name). I'd also suggest restarting discussion in a new thread if anyone does want to carry on with the idea, and archiving this thread. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Overdue requests

Am I allowed to remove nominations that exceeds its time limit, with results of "Pending, awaiting bureaucrat's decision"? And can I then create a link somewhere in WP:RFA that links to a page that stores all the pending nominations? Would that reduce some work for 'crats? Aquarius &#149; talk 16:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't really save any work. We already have the bot trackers that tell us when they are due to close. And we've generally held that nominations are open for comment until they are officially closed by a bureacrat under the idea that it's consensus we're looking for, not votes. - Taxman ^Talk 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi is overdue. Majorly (hot!) 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That would just seem really tedious. As Taxman said, TangoBot makes hourly update of the status of all current RfAs, and it also highlights those that need to be closed. You can see it at WP:BN. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Moreschi was overdue as Majorly mentioned, so I was just wondering. Thanks! Aquarius &#149; talk 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA record?

Is 22 23 concurrently running RfAs the record? —Kyриx 04:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More to the point -- does it still have a Problem? — Dan | talk 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be trite to say it but the best way to get more admins is to nominate more people... Changes to the RfA process may help or they may not, but I wonder if time would be better spent finding good candidates than worrying about the system we have for confirming them. WjBscribe 05:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem I'm finding these days is getting good, experienced candidates to agree to a nomination. A growing number of people who would use the tools with distinction are seeing the flak that flies your way simply by having a toolbelt, and are deciding that its not something they fancy. Rockpocket 06:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the most since Tangobot started using descriptive edit summaries last July. Someone knows, I'm sure (probably NoSeptember). And I'll have to agree with Rockpocket about the current issue. Dekimasuよ! 11:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I've tried to take up the challenge to nominate more people, but of the six I've asked so far, three have declined outright and three asked to wait. And my first nominee didn't pass... *sigh* -- nae'blis 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I say we blame it on Snowolf for stacking up WP:RFA! Four of the candidates were nominated by him. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that in recent weeks there have been more RfA candidates and they are getting approved at a higher rate than before. It might be worthwhile to give the current situation time to see if it is a fluke or if it will maybe hold up for awhile, before proceeding with any more reform proposals. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely having many nominations is a sign that RfA will shortly be broken since a) there is an increased chance of promoting an admin who turns bad (for which RfA will get the blame) or b) someone won't get promoted who someone else thinks ought to, who will then come here and scratch the record. Splash - tk 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why RfA is attacked for those things. Even if every single desysopping is the fault of RfA for letting someone bad through, and a full eighth of the people who were not promoted should have been, it still has above a 90% success rate. That's an A in my book. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Splash is being sarcastic. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-five editors running for adminship. One net featured article gain last week. o_O Gracenotes^T § 05:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The summer holidays are coming, I expect the nom. rate to drop soon... feydey 17:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First awareness of RfA

Can anyone here remember how they first heard about WP:RFA? I've been randomly flicking through various lists of random users (generated for the proposal being discussed above) and I'm wondering just how many regular editors aren't even aware of much of the bureaucracy underlying (or frothing on the top of) Wikipedia? It might be interesting to see how many users asked at random by the above proposal become involved in RFA, or even realise that they themselves could one day ask the community for approval to use these tools. I'm asking how people first heard about RfA because I have encountered some strange attitudes out there that seem to think of admins as being able to rule on content issues, and wonder how much the role of admins is misunderstood (or not) by editors in general. So add your story to the section below. Carcharoth 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First became aware of admins and adminship

• Visited the user page of an editor I was talking with and saw something there about them being an admin. After seeing a few more references, I eventually followed it up and read some of the documentation (eg. Wikipedia:Administrators). From what I can tell, my first contribution to this talk page was in September 2006, while I first commented in an RfA in April 2006. Carcharoth 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, I was trying to get to Arbcom, which I had read about on some talk page somewhere. So I used the abbreviation in the discussion I saw, which turned out to link here instead. -Amarkov moo! 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• After a few edits around Wikipedia, my inherent lust for power and ego gratification led me to search out how I could assert my iron will over the community. Mwuhahah...
  Actually, I have no clue whatsoever how I first tripped over this. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say I first looked up (or at least noticed) admins in my research on dispute resolution when dealing with DreamGuy, and saw it as something I'd like to pursue if I ended up sticking around.
  What's funny is that I kept meaning to self-nom, but never felt that I was quite there. I remember breaking 4k edits and thinking "well, maybe once I hit 5k", and when I did, thinking "well, maybe once I hit 6k..." EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I can sympathize with that. I occasiionally thought about self-noms, but if I had I would have felt so... dirty somehow.. go figure. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite sure, actually. I think I stumbled across User:Daniel.Bryant's candidacy for ArbCom first, but people complained he wasn't an admin. So I wourked my way over. No idea when I actually began voting. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Kept seeing a certain user all over the place, then noticed on his talkpage that someone wanted to nominated him for adminship. Sounds like fun, says I. That was my first vote (yep, it was a vote). – Riana_ऋ 15:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC) <edit> Heh, found a link! [1] That wasn't as bad as I thought it was... – Riana_ऋ 15:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Looking through my early edits, this is the first occasion I seem to be aware of administrator (asking a non-admin ironically). This was my first edit to an RfA, again kinda weird I know... then I note I'd support the user here (I failed to notice they'd been indefinitely blocked). Here's a comment on Misza13's RfA, but still no supports or opposes yet. Ooh my first vote, an oppose, how mean!. (The user was indefinitely blocked soon after). Ah, memories. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Admins? too long ago to track back in my mind, either through reading the policies or AFD participation, both of which occurred in my first 24 hours here. RFA? My first contribution was Moink's request for reapproval in May 2006, which probably was a followup to this AFD. GRBerry 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• I guess my first real awareness of what admins were was at an RfC for Zephram Stark in September 2005. I first started really participating in the Wikipedia space in December 2005, and my first RfA action was to support Yamla, here. I'm not actually sure how I came upon it in the first place. Kafziel ^Talk 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Before my first edit. (I happen to like reading things like instruction manuals and rulebooks, and I'd found quite a few things in the Wikipedia: namespace long before I became an editor.) --ais523 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Looking over old edits, I seem to have come here based on noticing that a particular editor was standing for adminship. I then slowly progressed to the point where I now view the standings every couple days. -- nae'blis 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Mine came a few days after registering... I was browsing with Random Page and found a totally crap page and was wondering how to delete it. (And that is how I found AfD within my first dozen edits, too. It scarred me for life.) I'm another one who reads the manual for everything. so I found out about requesting deletion, and admins, and how you become an admin. I think I looked at the RfA pages in bemusement and fascination, wondering how people spent enough time here to become admins, and this back when 1000-1500 edits was fairly standard. I decided those people were crazy. It turns out I was right. :-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• I first found RfA browsing the contributions of Luna Santin. He was the first editor to welcome me to Wikipedia and just over a month later, his RfA began. The next day I participated in my first Rfa, with a brief !vote of support. - auburnpilot talk 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• I can't believe that no one has ID'ed this one yet.... My first awareness of RFA was from going to someone's talk page to post a comment, watching for a reply, and finding one of those "thanks for voting for me" spam messages there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Let's see...I don't recall where and when I first found RFA. My first RFA edit was almost six months after I started contributing, so it definitely took me a while to find it. (Not as long as arbcom, though. I had never been there prior to the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war.) Sean William 03:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not really sure. I suspect it was a few months after I started editing in earnest. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oh my... I'm not sure about awareness of the process but trolling through my early contribs I find that I became aware of admins via Votes for Discussion, and apparently I participated in an arbitration before I participated in either RfB or RfA, and my first participation in either of those was to oppose an RfB!... sigh. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I can't really remember, but I suspect back when I joined I just read all the 5 pages there were on Wikipedia ;-). --Stephan Schulz 11:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At the instant you made your first edit (presumably at the time you joined, as it was to create your userpage), RfA looked like this. It's interesting how times have changed... --ais523 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to look back. I was there a few weeks before that, but wanted a watchlist to monitor the reaction to my Harry Blackmun rewrite. Look, Ma, no sources! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Finding out how to deal with vandals I came across WP:AIV and had a look at admins. I was too afraid to vote for a while. This was in August 2006, 2 months after I started editing. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I first came across "Requests for adminship" during Ryulong's last nomination. I supported Ryulong, and didn't give any input on any more RfA's until Persian Poet Gal's request for adminship. That's how I found out about the RfAs. :) Acalamari 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• First became aware of admins: Long time back, probably March 2004. First participation in RFA [2], July 2004. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• First aware of admins before account creation when I saw {{adminbacklog}} on a page like WP:RM (can't remember exactly which page), although at first I thought they were some group in an office somewhere (being paid!). I dunno when I realised they were (fairly) normal people and when I saw the expected standards (1500-2000 edits), I dismissed them as insane (now my edit count is about 3500- must be really insane). I have only recently started to actually bother !voting on this page though. GDonato (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• That would have been during my second month, when I first was figuring out how to nominate things for deletion and spent a while reading through the various policy and meta-pages afterwards. I never actually participated in an RfA until quite a bit later though. --tjstrf talk 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Came along probably after I hanged around at then-VfD. Back in those times RfA was remarkably similiar to how VfD worked, where percentages then still ruled the day. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Almost immediately after I started working on the dead-end pages backlog, I got a number of very angry messages from admins who disagreed with me. After mediation had proven its utter worthlessness, I simply started hanging around at the admin board. I don't think I did much at RFA until somebody nominated me. >Radiant< 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Total Edit Count

Maybe this should also be added on RFA talk pages since this includes deleted edits. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wannabe Kate gives a more detailed breakdown of the work the user does, not mere numbers. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying drop Kate. I'm saying have both. This one shows deleted edits. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm, how is it supposed to work? It doesn't work on my laptop. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I get a number of lines of code but the count can be seen sitting between <count> and </count> (if that's what you see). Will (aka Wimt) 21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats right Wimt. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I get a lower number there (5718) than from Wannabe Kate (5814). Is it missing some namespaces or lagging behind somehow? –Pomte 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Backlogs

I really do hope that these candidates, most of whom are clearly going to succeeed will actully follow through on their promises to spend time in WP:CSD. Because I, and a few others am working my butt off there.--Anthony.bradbury 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes do deletion sprees there, but it isn't a promise. In my rfA for example, I said I'd avoid deleting stuff! ;) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, in my RfA I mentioned that I'd spend time at WP:RFPP, though I don't think I've edited there much more than a half dozen times since. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity as criteria for "oppose"

Should inactivity be seen as a criteria for opposing people?? I think it depends on the situation, really. In my RFA I was criticised for not being active enough, but I do have legitimate reasons for doing so (and fairly recently, I haven't been that active as I used to be due to the following):

• My Windows XP (Home edition) has been sluggish recently and playing up, sometimes taking ages to start-up
• I have other real-life issues that mean it is hard to edit Wikipedia, due to me being on the move.

If people mention that they may be inactive they should say so in their RFA. I will mention this if I am ever nominated for RFA. However, people shouldn't just treat inactivity as criteria for opposition - they may have mitigating circumstances, like mine above.

This isn't a rant, or an attack on contributors, just a suggestion that people should try and assume good faith if people are inactive for a period of time. --SunStar Net ^talk 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• The point about inactivity is due to the fact that wikipedia is continuously evolving, if a user was very active 3 months ago, they will have understoond our policies and guidlines then, but things change quickly here, and if you go for a few months with relative inactivity, you will not be upto speed with the current environment. I agree that it should be treated on a case by case basis - but that's the reason. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• The only problem is convincing some people that people do know policy. I've been inactive, by my own self-admission, but I still try to keep up with policy as and when I can. --SunStar Net ^talk 09:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Not active long enough" makes sense, "recent inactivity" does not. -- John Reaves (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MAKE LINDENS FAST!

There's an unfortunate tendency for prospective admins to feel they have to work specifically to pump up their edit count. This is worst when it's done doing useless things, e.g. welcome messages to blocked vandalbot accounts. To that end, here is some useful work that needs doing. Rack up those edits! Pump up your score!

• More than one screen shot on a page? Bad, against policy and likely a copyright violation as well. Unlink all but the first screen shot and mark the images orphan with {{subst:orfud}}.
• Read {{spoiler}} - it should no longer be on any article with a subheading "Plot", "Summary", "Synopsis", "Background" or whatever, as those directly imply that plot elements will be included. Remove it and {{endspoiler}} in such cases. (Consensus is emerging that if the spoiler warning isn't eliminated entirely, it'll be severely curtailed. Thus, this will also be an exercise in which you can demonstrate your diplomatic skills.)
• Fair-use galleries are not just against policy but blatantly violate copyright. Typically found in band discographies - if you see a band article with <gallery> in the wikitext, you have a prospect.

Any others? - David Gerard 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions above. I also recommend:

• Patrolling new pages - not just the first 50/500 that show up when you click Special:Newpages, but the older ones. Put {{newpagelinks}} on your userpage and click the higher numbers once in a while. So much slips through the cracks.
• Check out fair-use images - if they're on an article which isn't mentioned in the fair use rationale, remove it from that article.
• Tag huge fair use images for fair use reduction or deletion if that's out of the question - screenshots and album/video game covers are generally the worst culprits.

Vandal fighting is great, but active users should look further than Special:Recentchanges. – Riana ⁂ 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

great idea. Some from me:

1. Look up biogs of living people and hack the POV out of them, and/or redress the balance.
2. Check out the newest AfD nominations and be the first or second to comment (this will help people assess the value of your contributions in a way that pile-ons will not)
3. Find a category of stubs that you have some knowledge/interest in and expand some to beyond stub size or apply the {{notstub}} template if they're already pretty encyclopedic for that topic.
4. Develop a FA. It's not as hard as you might think and it'll ensure a firm grip of many important policies and guidelines.

Cheers --Dweller 10:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Developing a Featured Article is an interesting exercise even if you don't make it to an actual FA. Teaches one a lot about the writing of an encyclopedia - David Gerard 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And I would not say tag the oversized fairuse images - I'd say resize them. You don't have to be an admin to resize an image - David Gerard 10:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, even better. Just that I tried resizing something sometime and made a real mess of it, so if you don't trust yourself to do it, tag it - even that helps. – Riana ⁂ 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RC patrol can also rack up edit counts. 175 edits (almost 3/min) in one hour! MER-C 11:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, didn't Riana just say: "Vandal fighting is great, but active users should look further than Special:Recentchanges." Carcharoth 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is telling that three of Dweller's suggestions require writing (improving POV biographies, expanding stubs, creating a FA). Admin candidates: forget tagging and voting and so on - just go forth and write some encyclopedic content. That is why we are here. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! We need to send the admin candidates to help clear the editing backlogs! The current admins can deal with the admin backlog. Warning: both the preceding statements may be false. Insufficient data. Carcharoth 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the candidates could get on with writing encyclopedic content while they are unable to undertake admin actions. They can deal with the backlogs, if they so desire, after they get The Bit™. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot more backlogs than just the administrative ones. If I see someone helping out where they can, I'm more willing to support them and their occasional editing history than someone who reverts 200 vandals a day. Sure reverting vandals is necessary, but we have enough headstrong newcomers willing to take up those ropes anyways. Zsinj^Talk 03:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with the first piece of advice there. We aren't limited to "one screen shot per page", we are limited to to number of screenshots which meet the criteria and serve the article. This is far more complicated than a simple numeric judgment: the fair use of an image is dependent not only on the image and rationale on the image page itself, but the article text, captions, even the page layout. There's nothing so simple as a numeric limit, since depending on the page there could be anywhere from no images at all to half a dozen which are being properly used.
So while advising people to get practice evaluating and writing fair use rationales, removing images which serve no purpose but decoration, etc. is all good, there's no shortcut method around actually learning how to apply fair use images properly. Trying to enforce a numeric limit in place of this is just going to promote sloppy speed-editing, superficial understanding, misapplication of policy, and possibly edit wars. --tjstrf talk 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You could write something similar to this for it, although be sure you have your facts and policy straight. Incidentally, I don't understand the title of this section... Making clones of me is all well and good, but it seems a little far-off at this stage. Or do you mean something else by "Linden"? Grandmasterka 05:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See Linden dollar. --tjstrf talk 06:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing something useful rather than goldfarming - David Gerard 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Good ideas all. Let's put them somewhere more promininent than a talk page with an excessive postflow and archival rating. >Radiant< 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't this page manually archived? Anyway, I suggest finding a page linked from Wikipedia:Community portal or that clean-up task template. For now, I'll copy over the ideas to the Community portal talk page and hope someone there does something with them. Carcharoth 10:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Make gnomish edits in an article on it's way to FA status. Make the edits by section to boost edit count. Enter meaningful sounding comments in edit summary to hide the fact that you're just fixing things like comma splices and spelling. Then not only you're bumping up your edit count, you can claim you helped develop an article to featured status. —M (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I wrote out an essay

On administrators. I've rarely contributed to this talk page because I've felt that for a long time we've had a question without an answer: what is the bottom line in why being a sysop is no big deal, but the process is rigorous/biased/broken? Trust, how to use discretion, judgment and be accountable as well. I think that we've been over thinking things for far too long. Feel free to edit, provide sources and links and whatnot. If not, I'll get to it.

"Simplify, simplify." ~Thoreau.

Teke^talk 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You missed two admin powers; admins also have the ability to create user accounts even if the account name is similar to an existing one or they've already created 6 accounts that day; and admins cannot be autoblocked or affected by a block on their IP. (Neither of these comes up all that often for most adminship work, but WP:ACC work takes up quite a proportion of my log.) --ais523 11:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Unwatchedpages too? GDonato (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected and move pages despite move protection (see WP:MOP). GDonato (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, page updated. Basically, I want this to be a reference for "Can I trust the user with these abilities?" with a clearcut transparency of what a sysop can do, and why it is a big deal in not being a big deal. Teke^talk 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You also missed "abuse magnet", which I think is the most surprising ability of an administrator. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent canvassing concerns

I'm really annoyed by the recent concerns about canvassing, because I think it isn't an issue that should be so influential in RfA's. I think that we should be allowed to tell the community about our RfA's, as an effective way of increasing participation. And I think that a good way to do this is using something similar to {{Editor review}}, which can be put on a user's userpage to announce that they are undergoing an RfA. We should still punish blatant "vote-whoring" (for lack of a better word), but I think there should be SOME notification of an RfA, so that those who know the user (for good or bad reasons) don't miss out. G1ggy! 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's pretty solid consensus that banners on your userpage are perfectly fine. Isn't there? -Amarkov moo! 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would hope so! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

People who oppose canvassers are simply clutching at straws, and are simply desperate to oppose for something. Sheesh, it's an admin, big deal. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I clutch at straws? Would a capable admin need to canvass for votes in the first place? —Kyриx 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A competent admin shouldn't need to canvas for votes. A simple banner on your userpage/talk page is fine. But adding things to others talk pages and to your sig is going too far. If a user doesn't understand the basic policies like canvassing they aren't ready for adminship. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Please explain how they aren't trustworthy. I'll find you some examples of canvassing if you like, of one of our best admins. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How is a user who doesn't understand policy ready for adminship? If they are attempting to skew consensus in their RfA what's to say they won't use the tools to go against consensus? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen. I don't understand policy like the back of my hand either. Does it make me a bad admin? No. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't some obscure policy most people haven't heard about. It's fairly simple to understand. Don't attempt to sway consensus by seeking editors with similar view points. An editor going for RFA should be familiar with all the basic policies. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of it when I was promoted. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you had heard of Wikipedia:Consensus, though. That implies no one-sided canvassing. -- nae'blis 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be because it didn't exist then. -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It did actually. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is basically taking a chance. You draw in some editors who have firsthand experience working with you and, presumably, will support your candidacy. On the other hand, you'll inevitably turn some of the regulars off, to the point that they'll oppose on that basis alone. This is actually detailed in the guide to guide to RfA's (recommended reading for all RfA applicants), under "what !voters look for and hope not to see". If someone wants to roll the dice, then that's their prerogative. I wouldn't oppose solely on that basis, but people should at least be aware that it's frowned upon by many, as it's detailed in the recommended reading. MastCell ^Talk 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Canvassing guideline is a bit vague. On one hand it allows some communication while disallowing others. There is no clear dividing line. In the recent case I supported the guy but warned him of what would happen. It was really rather sad to see him go down over this issue. I'm perplexed myself because I am considering my own RfA. But if I ask people what they think about me is that construed as canvassing? What if I ask a couple of people to nominate me? The point is, if the policy was crystal clear we could expect pristine adherence. As it is, it's like a mousetrap waiting to spring. And by the way, WP:CANVASS is not a policy. It's a guideline. JodyB _talk 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd think that an RfA candidate would take the time to read the guide to RfA which is pretty clear about how canvassing is frowned upon. Like I said in Booksworm RfA, editors who have befriended you on Wikipedia are the most likely to know your strengths but they're also the ones most likely to be oblivious to your faults and so canvassing tends to skew consensus. How would we react if somebody started canvassing people who have been in conflict with candidates? Surely we would not find this acceptable but I fail to see why canvassing people you've colaborated with is more acceptable. Pascal.Tesson 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is confusing at first glance, yes, but it becomes second nature. I don't find anything wrong if an RfA candidate (current or potential) asks for clarification regarding this topic. Ask away. —Kyриx 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Going back to my RfA, after receiving a request to run, I'd asked 2 admins to pre-clear my candidacy, highlighting specific issues that I wanted feedback on. One wasn't active at the time, so I asked a third in his place. When I was ready to accept a nomination a month later, that wasn't an issue for anyone. (I think I mentioned it in my general comments, but don't now recall; I know nobody mentioned it in opining.) GRBerry 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started work on a prospective banner for this. {{User:G1ggy/RfA Banner}} There's a to do list in the source code (commented), please have a look at this. Opinions, suggestions? G1ggy! 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record I think even that is a bad idea and I'm not sure why it should be considered helpful. It's not like RfA is lacking in participation. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find anything wrong with such templates, as long as they're plain and neutral. —Kyриx 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake! {{Rfa-notice}} has existed since October 2005, just use it instead of reinventing the wheel. -- nae'blis 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't one for RfB, and while it will get used far less often, I've created one: {{Rfb-notice}}. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah.... :-) Re-inventing the wheel. Almost as bad as adding a 4-day-late comment! Full marks to G1ggy for boldness. One question though, did G1ggy look and fail to find the existing template (if so, why?), or did G1ggy just not look? Carcharoth 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the "I couldn't find it" argument won't exist anymore; I just added "See also" sections to {{Editor review}} and {{Rfa-notice}} that link one to the other. Their uses are similar enough that I think it's a worthwhile addition. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

People could also use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Rfa-notice to see who is using it. And then cry foul about canvassing... (that was a joke!). Or even to read old discussions about it (lots of links to the WT:RFA archives). Seriously, the 'what links here' reveals it is not linked from any WP:RFA page, when surely it should be. Where would be a good place at WP:RFA to mention it, along with strongly worded warnings about canvassing? Carcharoth 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which strikes me as the most sensible place. I also included a little mention about how canvassing is akin to ensuring a failure; seemed like a good way to kill two birds with one stone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most people would be OK with a template like that. And in response to Jody's question, nominations usually require a bit of coordination, so I don't think anyone would frown on discussion in that arena. Notifying a Wikiproject that one of its members has been nominated is probably OK, as Wikiprojects generally aren't monolithic entities - one of the nominators did so in my RfA and it didn't seem to raise any hackles (or maybe no one noticed?). There's canvassing and then there's canvassing. In the case at hand, I think what rubbed people the wrong way was the dozens of talk-page messages that the candidate left - it plays on some deep-seated Wikipedia aversions to spamming and the like. MastCell ^Talk 04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Since my coding sucks (for lack of a better word), could someone please have a look at that template, and code it so that there is an option for 2nd, 3rd, 4th RfA's. G1ggy! 08:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Canvassing upsets editors because it was perceived to be lopsided and partisan. Same as in AfDs, it was thought to selectively spam editors whom the candidate thinks would support his point of view (or adminship, in this case). Even if the candidate is well-intentioned in getting as much community input as possible, this concern still sticks along with it till today. It is widely perceived that a good candidate need not go to editors to ask for support, rather editors coming to support the candidate themselves. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• On the one hand, there's the very real concern of RfA becoming Wikipedia:Pop contest, which makes people not want you to canvass for votes. On the other hand, if you have friends on-wiki they would appreciate the chance to vote for you, and if they don't watch the RfA page then you telling them is the only chance they may have to find out about it. Personally, I wouldn't find telling a few people about your RfA offensive, but if a person's been spamming the talk pages of everyone they've ever exchanged three words with, then that would definitely earn an oppose from me. I could make such a great sig pun with it though. tjstRfA 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikifriends probably visit each others' talk pages at least once a week. The template {{rfa-notice}} on a user page should work well for them; and the nice thing about this template is that you can't control or predict who will visit your talk page, so there's no opportunity for partisan notifications and vote-stacking. ··coelacan 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Some people aren't concerned about the background functioning of Wikipedia. They come to edit articles and that's all they're concerned about. RfA's, AfD's RFC's and all the other alphabet soup things we do to keep the service running is beyond their interest and that's OK. I guess it would be nice however, to have a system wide method of telling people that XYZ is seeking adminship, maybe something like the banner advertising the international wikiconference. Of course the down side to that is that people become immune to it and don't really pay attention to it. Maybe it could be an option that a user selects or unselects. While that might work for RfA's because there are only two or three per day, It certainly would not work with AfD's because of the volume of pages listed. Anyway, Booksworm will know better next time and his experience highlights the importance of no-canvassing. JodyB _talk 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I use Tangotango's report for. It sits on my userpage and I look at it every couple of days to see who's there. Doesn't everybody (at least, everybody who cares what's happening at RfA) use that? Kafziel ^Talk 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The only bot page that shows RfBs is User:Dragons flight/RFA summary, so don't forget to check that one from time to time. NoSeptember 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I use WP:BN sometimes, but more often User:Mathbot/Most recent admin (which I have watchlisted). The page itself is pretty useless, but its history alerts people to RfAs starting. --ais523 12:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for 2 very good tips (Kafziel and ais523). I have wanted something that warns me about users running for RfA for a long time, now it is more or less luck if I happen on anyone that I know of that I really want to vote for. This should help. Stefan 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudicial canvassing is not OK, but the user I nominated did not do so. His so-called "canvassing" was neutral as it was sent to all users appeared in his talk page, not just ones supporting him. Anyways, using this obscure guideline as the sole reason to oppose is not a good practice. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If he was going to alert users, he could've said "if you're going to comment", not "if you're going to support". Interpreted one way, that could also mean if you're not going to support, don't go there. (though I doubt the user meant that). Still, the user shouldn't have said "support". --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's known as nitpicking. Who cares how he said it. Doesn't affect his admin abilitiy. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A good canvasser will know the difference that sort of difference in wording would make. And even if someone's first RfA goes badly because of this, waiting til next time doesn't hurt. Carcharoth 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt but it's completely unnecessary. People complain about lazy admins and RfA being broken - it's them that cause it! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose on the basis of canvassing alone, but if it was part of some larger behavior I would. Like an obviously desperate attempt to get the power just for the sake of having it. Quadzilla99 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA format idea - new proposal

Please see User:SunStar Net/RFA Reform/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SunStar Net - and actually vote in this one. It's dual-purpose: it tests out a new format, and it also will be a useful guide on what I need to improve to become an admin,

If it works, it works, if it doesn't.... oh well, I can always try again with a new format! --SunStar Net ^talk 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just a little note; are you intending that an RFA on this format is decided based on the number of votes cast? If not, could you perhaps explain the difference between this format and the existing one? My concern here, or at least as this format appears is that the whole thing will just be based on the sole number of votes for/against a user, basically meaning that it's all reduced to a popularity contest. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• It's not quite a vote-count. Users could vote Support or Oppose, but they have to give full reasons why they feel the user is suitable/unsuitable for adminship, not just one-line answers.

This is a typical reply on the current system: Support - user is excellent. Username SunStar Net ^talk

The change would be based on comments given, e.g. Support I have seen this user, and he has made good contributions in areas X, Y and Z and is good at conflict resolution. I have worked with him on article X and he was very helpful whilst dealing with a controversial issue.

It would take into account the number of votes, but based on reasons why the candidate should be nominated, not just WP:ILIKEIT votes (which are common on RFA/AFD's).

This was the idea I was getting at, above. --SunStar Net ^talk 19:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any different to the current system, except possibly mixing the support and oppose !votes in the same section. What is going to make people give better reasons than they do now? --Tango 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to improve the proposal as you want. I was suggesting that people give full reasons, not just "I like this user" or "I do not think this user will do well as admin" - if the bureaucrats would take reasons why into account, then it could

work. It may stop RFA's from turning into vote-counts. However, it is not yet fully written up, so feel free to expand it or change it as you will. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please list this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. But I have to agree with Tango; there would basically be no difference here as compared to how things are today. Also, remember that having a bunch of support/oppose !votes from established users does actually say something about a candidate, even if they haven't given any reasons as to why. As for my own opinion, I feel that we need a bigger change in the process; this would only change some of the wording in the policies, without actually having any practical effects. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks similiar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis at the current state? - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

...and correct me if I'm wrong but it's not like too many people fell in love with the Moralis format! Pascal.Tesson 04:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the format of that RfA was a lot like love ... lacking order and logic and progressively complicated and messy. ;) -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) In case anyone's wondering, I'm not really this cynical and melancholy. Honestly.

Only thing better would be to Javascript it to so each opinion randomly floats around on the article page. --Ozgod 05:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

... maybe even with this as a snapshot ... -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol. I personally dislike messy stuff so counting of support/oppose !votes will be harder to count this way. The new format proposed would not make any difference and it just changes the looks of an RFA page, nothing else. Not everyone will give reasons for supporting an RFA candidate, so why the change? Terence 09:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Counting the "!votes" is irrelevant, since RfA is not a vote, but a consensus garnering mechanism. The votes are meaningless. --Durin 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still questioning the use of question number 4 regarding arbitration enforcement. Either way, I'm not really a fan of the Moralis format. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The idea is, basically, that bureaucrats should take into account, the quality of the arguments, rather than the number of votes. --SunStar Net ^talk 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by banned sockpuppet of banner user

What is the policy on this? There were also several personal attacks by this sockpuppet in the discussion, and he ridiculously accused the user who was being considered for AFD of using a sockpuppet and made several other personal attacks to the user who had been accused of being a sockpuppet of the user being considered. Should these comments be deleted, striked through, or simply have a comment written under them? I think that they're so absurd and irrelevant that they shouldn't remain in the discussion. hmwithtalk 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any contribution by a banned user can be reverted on sight; see WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits and WP:CSD#G5. --ais523 07:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice. I have done this. Cheers! hmwithtalk 08:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes

I have suspended Gracenote's RfA after closing time to give me a chance to contact other Bureaucrats to see what way would be best to proceed. Just about all interested have had their say, now I ask that you please be patient for a bit. Thanks! -- Cecropia 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You've made the right move, Cecropia. I'm interested to see what the outcome of the RfA will be after discussion amongst the bureaucrats. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nishkid that you've certainly made the right move in suspending it, but I have to urge you not to take it into a re-run - there is a consensus to be had with the current discussion, and a discussion between you 'crats to determine that consensus will certainly put out the flames straight away. It's certainly not a super vote, but merely a way of coming to a conclusion to what the consensus is saying. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a re-run either. If the decision is not to promote, Gracenote is allowed to re-seek adminship anytime he/she wants to, so a forced re-run is superfluous. The question is, after discounting sockpuppets, trolling, etc, was there a consensus to promote, yes or no. --BigDT 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no re-run. Just discuss it amongst your bureaucratic selves, and so long as your decision makes sense there shouldn't be any problems.--Wizardman 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. No re-run. It's in your collective laps now. A re-run would look like a vote is needed and we don't want that. JodyB _talk 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A re-run would seem highly unfair to Gracenotes. It might be just myself, but if I was in his shoes I'd rather see a Consensus/No Consensus decision rendered...through Bureacrat Chat if need be, than simply have my RFA relisted without comment. I know a decision might be difficult to render...but a re-run just seems like giving up before one begins. Forgive me if that seems accusatory, I'm certain any Bureaucrat would be acting in the projects best interests. The appearance of the thing just worries me. --InkSplotch 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with no re-run. I made my thoughts on this a few days ago on WP:BN here. However, I wouldn't mind if Rerun were brought in to decide consensus, but unfortunately he's dead. daveh4h 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with no rerun. That's why we have bureaucrats, to decide on controversial nominations. It would be best if a bureaucrat chat would be employed, for the sake of transparency, consistency, and all that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A re-run would just seem unfair for Gracenotes...bureaucrat action will make the decision final. Sr13 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a re-run is a good idea. It prolongs the process unnecessarily for Gracenotes and there is no reason to believe exactly the same outcome would not be produced. The crats should be able to determine whether or not there is a consensus to promote. If they decide there is not, Gracenotes can decide the timing of his next RfA. A forced rerun would be bureaucratic and stressful with only hypothetical advantages. WjBscribe 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a re-run seems unfair to Gracenotes; I find working on a contentious RfA sometimes tiring and even upsetting, and I'm not even the candidate! ;-) But I would put a question to each "side" of opinion in GNs RfA. If the bureaucrats find that consensus isn't reached, will that wrong a Wikipedian who tried very hard in good faith to explain his stance? If the bureaucrats find that consensus is reached, will that ignore the legitimate concerns of the many opposers who may feel that real and legitimate concerns have been ignored? I have developed a personal feeling about this nomination, but I am one (albeit a bureaucrat, and I appreciate the trust so many put in us) and the participants are more than 270. -- Cecropia 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Add my voice to those that feel an immediate reboot/re-run is not in Gracenotes' best interests. If the 'crat decision is not to give GN the sysop bit, then he can run at any future time of his choosing. We're not likely to get a significantly different result immediately, IMO. -- nae'blis 15:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As a totally off topic question, is it possible to see the B'crat discussion? To not disturb the argument, a reply on my talk page would be best. Thanks =D G1ggy! _{Review me!} 04:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How would you feel about the results of Gracesnotes' RfA?

I know some of us hate straw polls, but I really want to get some gauge of community sentiment on this issue, understanding, of course, that this is just a straw poll, not any kind of "vote." -- Cecropia 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like polls, but I like this. --Deskana (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Question

If a Bureaucrat Chat resulted in a decision that is the opposite of the opinion you expressed on Gracenotes' RfA, how would you feel about the fairness of the process? (see the RfA)

I would accept the decision, without reservation

1. Although I neither supported, opposed, or stayed neutral, I would have supported him if the RfA were still open. I would accept the bureaucrat decision, whatever the outcome, with no reservation. The bureaucrats have the final decision on all RfA's, and it should be no different in this case. Sr13 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2. I didn't vote, but leaned towards the opposers, mainly because there were a lot of names of people I respect on Wikipedia there. The result falls in the normal range of bureaucrat discretion, and I'm happy to trust the bureaucrats to make the decision.-gadfium 06:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3. I voted oppose, and while I am disappointed with all of those who supported him despite what I feel is an important issue, I wouldn't be disappointed with the bureaucrats or the RfA process for deciding the consensus of the community doesn't match my own personal opinion. The role of the bureaucrats' judgment in deciding RfAs is well-established, and our bureaucrats were chosen by the community because of their sound decision-making. Krimpet (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4. I supported, and I'd be fine with the end decision either way. --Deskana (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
5. I would accept any outcome so long as there was public comment from a number of 'crats into it - a simple explanation of the reasoning would alleviate any concerns I have. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
6. I would support the outcome regardless of my recommendation.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Hey, you folks should just do your job and don't worry too much about what I might think. If you interpret consensus to be X, and my personal opinion is negative X, that means my personal opinion is not equivalent to consensus. I have a fundamental trust in the bureaucrat system which will not be shaken by one controversial decision. YechielMan 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
8. It's a close call and that's why we have bureaucrats. Gracenotes should be given the tools and if it is not now, I fully expect it will be soon anyway. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
9. I will accept the decision as long as it is not the poor job Rdsmith4 did in a couple of recent RfAs. As long as the bureaucrats take a hard look, discuss among themselves, and do a good job as well giving the impression of doing a good job, their decision should be accepted by the community. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
10. As a non-voter on this RfA, had I voted I would have no problem with the bureaucratic decision.--Wizardman 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Yep, this is what we have bcrats for. -- Visviva 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
12. It depends a bit on the process used reach the decision. A good rationale or evidence, in for example a beaucrat chat, of careful consideration of all the issues raised would go a long way in convincing me that the process was fair. Eluchil404 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
13. As much as I want the RfA to succeed, despite disagreeing with GN's stance on Q4, I would accept the bureaucrats' decision without reservation ... well, one reservation: I think there should be an explanation of why it was decided the way it was. As I understand it, this straw poll is meant to solicit opinions regarding the process of a "bureuacrat chat" to evaluate consensus in particularly controversial cases. I support that. Even if the RfA is closed as "failed" rather than "succeeded", you'll hear no cries of "Death to the cabal!", "Power to the people!", or "Long live the revolution!" from me. ... Well, maybe just the last one. ;) Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
14. This is what the B'crats are put on the hot plate for. I'd be disappointed , sure, but this is squarely in the middle of 'judgment' territory, not "only if they do what I want" territory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Sure. Would be a little disappointed though. —Anas ^talk? 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
16. We elect the bureaucrats to make the right decision on RfAs. I trust that they will make the correct decision even if it is not what I agree with. Captain panda 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
17. this is what we nominate b'crats for, to gauge consensus in difficult situations. -M^ask? 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Aside from my rather silly response below, I have to echo the "that's their job" that several other editors are saying. If being a 'crat was easy, everyone would be one. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
19. I didn't participate in the discussion, but I would completely trust the 'crats, as they know what they're doing. I have complete faith in them to always do what is best for Wikipedia and the community! hmwithtalk 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
20. I don't envy the 'crats having to call this one. Better you than me. - David Gerard 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Provided the B'crats have shown that the opposing view towards the decision has been evaluated to the fullest extent. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
22. I trust the bureaucrats to handle this, and all decisions, appropriately. I've never seen a case where I think the bureaucrats really screwed up (even when I disagreed with the result). Of all the ideas, I think an open bureaucrat chat is best. Ral315 » 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
23. This is an example of why we give b'crats the right to make these decisions. B'crats are people whose judgement, in the main, is felt by the community to be balanced, lucid, and discerning enough, that they have been entrusted by the community to make the tough calls. I voted oppose, but if Gracenotes is made a sysop by the b'crats, well, that is why we have them for. Now, if really poor judgement is shown (promoting someone with 45% approval) then a de-b'crating may be called for >:) -- Avi 04:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
24. We elect bureaucrats to make these judgment calls, and we should support them even when we strongly disagree with the outcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would accept the decision, with some reluctance

1. I will grant that the oppose side had arguments, although I don't agree with them, and am astonished that one opinion over a one issue, where there is no evidence that there would be any abuse of admin tools, translated into some 60 oppose votes. Nonetheless, nobody has a right to pass RFA, and I can see that this opinion did upset people who opposed in good faith, putting this firmly in borderline territory. A borderline case can go either way and it's up to the crats now. I supported, continue to support, hope the RFA passes, and considering the promotion of people who have had more significant opposition against them, think this RFA ought to pass. But even if it does not, I am confident that the bureaucrats have taken the time to analyze this thoroughly, something I feel was not done in the Danny RFA. I will therefore accept a "no consensus" result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2. I would accept it, with reluctance, mainly because I supported so strongly, and would see it as a waste to have him not get through. Nothing against RfA in itself, just candidate related "feelings." G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Though not as reluctant as my acceptance of this stupid poll. WjBscribe 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4. The biggest "per WJBscribe" ever. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would accept the decision, but feel it was wrongly decided

1. I voted support and didn't change it, because I actually believe GN would make a good admin. Yes, I'd feel it was wrongly decided if he weren't promoted, because I believe I made the right decision. But first and foremost I'm ready to accept that it's not up to me to make the final decision, so I'd still accept any decision without hesitation. Life will go on either way. —AldeBaer 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Obviously. If I felt it was correctly decided, then I should have voted the other way. But we have 'crats for a reason, so I'd accept any decision (although it's unclear what the alternative is). But I think prolonging this much further would be a mistake and take up time better spent elsewhere, so would appreciate a definitive close fairly soon, rather than spend too long discussing it (remember, it's no big deal). Trebor 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3. I co-nominated Gracenotes for adminship, and it would be a terrible shame to see the RfA fail. I still think Gracenotes was fully qualified for adminship, and the overpowering effect of "oppose per xx" or "oppose per Q4" is the only reason why a good admin candidate like Gracenotes would fail his RfA (assuming the crats decide to go by looking at consensus). Of course, I know Gracenotes can go up for adminship again in the future, and I will undoubtedly be there to support him. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4. His legitimate position on attack sites was over-scrutinized relative to his reasoning ability and dedicated contributions to the project (no, incorrectly labelling them as bot edits is not a sensitive way to highlight them). –Pomte 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
5. I would assume they decided not to follow consensus in the hope that it would be less divisive. This is a judgment call, and they have a right to make it. I think they'd be wrong though, & that it would just continue the situation. DGG 07:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
6. I voted for Gracenotes and hope that he will be named an administrator. Majoreditor 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would accept the decision, but feel betrayed

1. I would feel like Consensus stabbed me in the back. That heartless bitch... but I still love her. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would feel it was evidence that RfA is broken and/or the Bureaucrats are biased

1. The only view I hold strongly is that there should not be a revote. I'm not going to get up in arms one way or the other over whether or not this user is sysopped. But I strongly feel that a revote is a bad idea. If the result a revote or any other action that doesn't involve simply making a decision, then that is by definition evidence that RFA is broken. The whole purpose of RFA is to make a decision and if that cannot be achieved, then there is a problem somewhere along the line. --BigDT 17:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   I don't believe that answers the question asked. You are expressing an opinion against a revote, rather than how you would feel if the bureaucrats made a decision opposite to your own position. -- Cecropia 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   That's what I answered. The only position I strongly hold is that there should not be a revote. If the decision is the opposite of that position, then RFA is broken. --BigDT 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Since this is a poll, I assume I'm allowed to comment in several sections? Anyway, BigDT said it all: I wouldn't oppose either of the two possible outcomes. I don't regard a revote as a possible outcome. An RfA as such is successful if and only if it has an outcome. Restarting equals failure of the process to determine an outcome. You're the b'crats, so please do your job and decide whether or not to promote. Not deciding would only shift the problem to the future, as I strongly assume many would show up to support or oppose again. I know I would. —AldeBaer 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3. The fact that a single unpopular opinion can make an RfA this bad demonstrates that RfA is broken no matter what the decision happens to be. People have already started to realize that the easiest way to pass RfA is not holding any opinions. Training new admin candidates to supress unpopular opinions until they're established enough that nothing can be done is not good. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

   This is a very important point. Currently, RfA at least tends to favour political manoeuvrers (which is not to say those are not intelligent people and/or good users), while it proves tough to near impossible for anyone with an significant attitude. —AldeBaer 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

4. The fact that people can throw in whatever accusations they like ("Why are you using an unapproved bot?", "I'm not", "Yes you are!"; "Gracenotes supports attack sites!"; "strawman strawman strawman! strawman strawman? strawman!"; etc.) is a fact of life apparently. But the fact that they can say it isn't terribly concerning to me (heck, people have to feel free to speak, no matter what they have to say). However, if the bureaucrats were to prove themselves unable to examine what was actually being said, then I think that'd conclusively prove that RfA is broken. (Not that the bureaucrats are biased, though. Closest I ever saw to any predisposition at all was one 'crat deciding not to comment on an issue, because he didn't want to affect other people's opinions, which obviously doesn't count) Bladestorm 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Other (what?)

1. If this is to gauge consensus, there was an RfA that is supposed to represent that. There is a lot of information to pour over in the RfA and I don't understand how this changes or adds to the consensus to promote or not. With that off my chest, if the closing 'crat finds that a disagreement over disputed language in policy is enough to sink an RfA, I think it may have a chilling effect on good faith editors who have differing opinions on controversial policies. If there is no consensus to promote because the oppose comments address issues besides a good faith policy dispute, then that is an easier pill to swallow. Perhaps that answers your question. As an aside, with this particular policy discussion, there is more agreed on than we think, but there seems to be communication problems. That will only be solved when everyone decides they want to listen. That's all I have to say that I feel is relevant. daveh4h 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my intent is to gauge sentiment about the process, not to help determine the RfA. -- Cecropia 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2. The post-Cecropia bureaucrat-appellate-court-of-border-line-!votes tends to favour the Establishment by 70-to-80 percent margin. What? El_C 07:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   Wouldn't this be the post-post-Cecropia era? :) -- Cecropia 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   I hope so. Cecropia: he makes that 20-to-30 percent 70-to-80 percent more likely! El_C 07:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

3. I find this poll inappropriate. Pencils down, kids. Exam is over. Grading has begun. No second bites at the apple. -- Y not? 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Of course I'd accept the bureaucrats' decision, it's not as though they're to blame for this. However, if the result genuinely does reflect the community's opinion of this candidate, that is not a community I can work with – Gurch 12:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Could we have less of these ridiculous ad-hoc polls, please? Who decided what the questions would be. Please think about this for a bit. --Tony Sidaway 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   This poll will probably have no significance in the final decision. Besides, this poll has response bias (as do most polls :P), which is why it's not even that great of a gauge for the community response to whatever outcome results from Gracenotes' RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

6. Initially I thought this poll was to gauge some sort of meta-opinion on the opinions expressed in the RFA; since you seem to actually want commentary on the process of using a Bureaucrat Chat to help decide the outcome of the RFA (emphasis mine), you can probably predict that my response would be supportive. That said, if a B'crat Chat came to the opposite decision of mine (not just 'no consensus', but 'failed'), I would feel that the process failed in this instance, as I substantially do not see that outcome supported in the RFA. So I partially concur with TS and partially dissent with the poll as worded. No further questions for the witness bureaucrat. -- nae'blis 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
7. I don't really mind ... I had my say, if it's agreed with, great, if it's not, then there's no problem, there'll be other days. I do predict that no matter what result is arrived at, someone will have a hissy fit. Neil (►) 09:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
8. I'm confused as to what exactly is going on here. In fact I'm not clear why there's a solicitation of opinion (although I suspect I'd commend Cecropia for it once I understood it :) ) or about what exactly. It seems open and shut to me here... there's a close and contentious RfA with no obvious outcome, and now the 'crats have to decide what to do. In the past we've often seen one 'crat step up and make a decision and then take heat about it, with concomitant charges that there were issues with the RfA process, with the 'crat process, etc. etc. etc. ... in this case it looks like there will be (was?, is ongoing? I'm so confused!) discussion among the crats to try to decide what consensus actually is, and then present the community with their findings and decision. That seems like the correct process, it seems like the process we want and expect, and it seems like unmitigated goodness. So I'm confused what the poll is about. Maybe I'm missing reading some key page somewhere though? I skimmed through most of the talk on the RfA page, was this matter somewhere else as well? If it's not clear yet, I strongly support the idea that the crats are going to go off and try to figure out what the community wants to have happen, and then try to do the right things to make it so... that's after all, why we chose them, to do exactly these sorts of hard things. ++Lar: t/c 10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
9. I'd support the 'crats in whatever decision they came to, but I think that regardless of what the final decision is the RfA process didn't work properly in this case, and feel sorry for the 'crats for having to close the RfA with what probably isn't the most helpful information. And "no matter what result is arrived at, someone will have a hissy fit" (a quote from Neil above) seems pretty accurate to me too. --ais523 11:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
10. I don't really care about Gracenotes one way or the other (I didn't even vote in the RfA), and wouldn't be hugely bothered by either decision (it's not the closer's fault the RfA went out of hand.) But my gut feeling is that when something attracts a large number of people and a lot of discussion, the guidelines for determining when you have consensus should become generally stricter. If an RfA only has 27 people commenting on it, and it seems fairly divided, it becomes much more important to look at individual comments and arguments to read if there's an underlying direction people are heading in; when you have 272 people in all and it's still divided, though, that's probably an indicator that there really isn't any consensus to be read. --Aquillion 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Meh. --Carnildo 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Uhuh. El_C 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gaming RFA - a case study

I guess people might accuse me of WP:BEANS, but I think the good outweighs the bad here, and honestly it's not that hard to figure out how to do this, but seeing how it was done is, I think, useful in detecting new instances of it. What I'm referring to is accounts created by sockpuppets with the goal of passing RFA. Runcorn (talk · contribs), as was recently shown in this thread, was a sockpuppet in an operation that spanned several years.

Runcorn passed RFA without much objection. Other than giving Crazyrussian and Ageo020 the gold medal for RFA comments that look brilliant in hindsight, what can this RFA do for us? Look at Runcorn's pre-RFA history... I mean, really delve into it. The majority of his edits were adding Category:Living people to articles. This is so simple that bots are the ones who normally do it. Then there was some stub sorting. Other than that, there were just a lot of late "going with the flow" comments in AFDs and RFAs that were sure to be uncontroversial. Apparently a few "substantial" edits were made, but they were all mentioned in Q2. but 99% of their pre-RFA edits were pretty obviously just done to pad an edit count without revealing anything about what the editor was actually interested in.

Here's an account that, it seems to me, was grown from day 1 with the intention of having a superficially impressive edit history and having done absolutely nothing controversial. It's account that was grown to pass an RFA. And it worked. We should look for this stuff. Assume good faith, but sometimes there's just something wrong. Does anyone think we can actually stop this the next time someone tries to do it? I think this is something people should know about. --W.marsh 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it's possible to stop. It's very easy to do - anyone with experience here knows how to do it, and I doubt Runcorn is the only one who's done this. The problem, unfortunately, is that we already have a general consensus that we don't have enough administrators - can we afford to lose more possibilities based on these suspicions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the things Crazyrussian points out in the RFA was just 16 messages left for Runcorn on his talk page. While that doesn't prove anything, you tend to get what, maybe 1 comment for every 100 edits you make? That's about what I get... I'm sure some people get way more. But if someone is getting substantially under that number... it suggests their edits really aren't very meaningful. Even doing nothing but cleanup pre-RFA I had 50+ comments on my talk page. I know we can't catch everyone who does this... but Crazyrussian made some pretty good points and the community not only didn't listen, but they talked him out of it. Maybe identifying some "warning signs" will be helpful. --W.marsh 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oooo! Oooo! A new metric! A new metric! Oppose: Ratio of external edits to your talk page vs. mainspace edits is lower than 1:50. Obviously can not be trusted! ;) --Durin 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said... I'm trying to be helpful here, Durin. --W.marsh 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• You'll note the sarcastic smiley I put on the end of my comment... --Durin 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Can't be stopped because the vast, vast majority of people at RfA do not look at edits. They simply look at edit counts, and some cursory review on whether the person's been in controversy before. Very superficial stuff. It's easy to pass RfA if you play the game. --Durin 14:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Gah, I'm certainly greatly concerned. I for once, value editors who have shown their improvement over time and are not afraid to leave their distant past out in the open. Unfortunately, this is a minority opinion in practice, so most probably those editors that switch accounts in order to erase their pasts have an excuse... NikoSilver 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Durin has it exactly. We're focusing on the wrong things in RFA (edit count and conformity) when we should be looking at the ability to handle conflict, think independently and on your feet, and accept that you will be wrong from time to time. I know that I refrained from doing/saying certain things before I passed RFA because I saw how those who stood out got chopped down, and I don't believe I would have been a hard sell even if I had said them. But it was easier not to; is that gaming the system? --nae'blis 14:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (not logged in from work due to my sooper sekrit password)
    • It's playing a social politics game. Don't anger people, you pass. There's another aspect to this though; if a person does game the system to become an admin, and doesn't otherwise abuse things...why should we care? --Durin 14:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If they aren't a sockpuppet then it's not a problem. But this is a case where they were. I suppose many people (myself even) does a thing or two to look better at RFA, but we're talking about accounts created from day one with the goal of passing RFA without any thought to actually improving the project. That's pretty much always going to be a sockpuppet of some sort, right? --W.marsh 14:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Sockpuppets are not bad, nor are they against policy. If an account is created from day one to pass RfA, makes a bunch of contributions (even if menial and insignificant), passes RfA swimmingly, and does a number of admin functions properly and by policy, what does it matter? It's still making contributions to the project. Sure, it *feels* dirty. But, where's the crime? Where's the victim? I'm speaking in the abstract of course. In the cited example that began this thread, there's considerable problematic behavior. --Durin 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Heh, let's just run a check-user over any open RfAs. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • CHKUSR against the whole community? Rational, but inapplicable. Or is it? (gee, we're in the age of computers!) NikoSilver 14:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • In all seriousness, I do recall someone suggesting we checkuser all people who run for adminship. I forget why exactly, but it was maybe a year ago. Ultimately though, ArbCom didn't just wake up one day and randomly decide to run a checkuser on Runcorn, pages and pages of evidence were delivered to them by multiple people who noticed things in the edit patterns. --W.marsh 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
            • It was probably related to the Jtkiefer/Pegasus incident (not an exact diff, but close). --nae'blis 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I suppose it comes down to accountability, if you're looking at why this could be bad. If the user had two accounts from day one, doing controversial edits with one and menial, edit count increasing edits with the other... It's dishonest unless it's made exceptionally clear that the two accounts are the same user, because in an RfA we're trying to determine the trustworthiness of the user. If he or she has made decisions or edits I'm uncomfortable with and I'm unaware of them because they're on a different, unmentioned account, I'd feel cheated. The candidate they presented themselves to be wasn't the candidate I would have chosen, and in a case like that no amount of digging (short of a Check User) would have revealed otherwise. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Durin, in response to you asking why it matters if they do not abuse their position, the problem is when you get the same guy with more than one admin account and we don't even realize he is abusing his position. Otherwise, you are right, an admin who acts like a good admin is a good admin. ^(H) 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, it actually is against policy to use a sockpuppet to "Avoid scrutiny from other editors". Probably for the reason H describes above. --W.marsh 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I wish there was a solution to this. When I vote in RfAs, I try to look at an editor's history. If I feel there history doesn't fill me with trust on an editor, I oppose their RfA and usually ask the editor to try again when they get more experience (meaning more of a history here). The problem is that too many editors want evidence of actual wrongdoing when you oppose an RfA. Merely saying a person doesn't have enough history to totally trust them usually gets an editor lots of nasty comments. That said, no matter what reforms or guidelines we institute with RfAs, there will always be people who game the system.--Alabamaboy 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• As long as we remain an open community, this probably can't be prevented. However, it strikes me that the barriers could be raised somewhat by a more holistic, perhaps portfolio-based, approach to RfA, with candidates explicitly required to a) demonstrate a range of experience including deletion work, article improvement, etc., and b) reflect in detail on this experience. This would also, hopefully, help to reduce the role of litmus tests in RfA, since the focus would shift from "has candidate done anything Wrong" to "has candidate amassed a respectable body of work without showing critical errors of judgment." I was working on a framework for this at one time; maybe I should get back to work on that. -- Visviva 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat is open on Gracenotes's RfA

As Gracenotes has indicated the desire not to reopen his RfA immediately, the entire issue will be discussed in a Bureaucrat Chat. In the interests of transparency, all may view the chat here. Please remember that only bureaucrats will discuss the situation on this page and others' comments will be removed. Thank you all for your patience. -- Cecropia 15:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A piece of data that may be of use, a very recent successful RfA closed with a 67% support. While the final decision is, of course, a judgment call from the 'crat who adopts it and RfA isn't supposed to be a raw numbers game, the closing bureaucrat (Rdsmith4 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) may be able to offer guidance in how he navigated the rough waters of a contentious discussion in determining consensus. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Of somewhat more importance than the numbers, which any monkey can count, is the strength and validity of the arguments for and against the candidate. Please remember that, otherwise there is no point having bureaucrats at all – Gurch 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well spluh! :) Hence my comment above "While the final decision is, of course, a judgment call from the 'crat who adopts it and RfA isn't supposed to be a raw numbers game" followed up by a suggestion that the closing bureaucrat engage Rdsmith4 because he recently closed an RfA in a similar situation, and he might have some thoughts on how to determine the actual consensus here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Using Danny's RfA as something to compare with is probably not a good idea. That one introduced the inovative idea of bureaucrat chat (thanks to Taxman), but overall could have been handled much better I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, which is why I didn't use Danny's RfA as the example above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am still obsessed with that one. :) Your referred to Krimpet's of course, closed by the same bureaucrat, Rdsmith4, and with the same low percentage, very inconsistently with other nominations closed by other bureaucrats. (Even taking into account that RfA is not a vote, such a thing does not inspire faith in the process.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to comment too much about this off the 'crat-chat but I want to firmly say that this is nothing like Danny's RfA. Different candidate, unique position of the candidate, different situation, different opposition, different considerations. I also want to firmly state that I will resist those who want to use this as a precedent to make every disputed nomination a bureaucrat chat. I or any of the other 'crats could perfectly well have closed this but I think its dynamics make it appropriate to treat this RfA differently. -- Cecropia 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Important question about my becomink an admin

I want to be an admin and think I would make a very good one. I have a question, how much would I have to donate to become an admin? Also, if I donate enough, could I become a bureaucrat, or would I have to become an admin first? Best, Cult of the Sacred Or_nge

Sorry, that's not how adminship works. You have to pass a RfA, as seen on the project page associated with this talk page. To pass, you'll have to do quite a bit of work for the project, which you haven't done yet. Sean William @ 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignore him. Here are the rates: Admin: 1 kidney. Bureaucrat: 2 kidneys. Preferably yours in both cases, but we don't ask questions around here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The going rate at the minute is 1000GBP to become an admin, and unfortunately 10,000GBP to become a crat - make the cheques payable to "Ryan Postlethwaite" only joking, what Sean William said Ryan Postlethwaite 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WOT??? I was robbed! I want my £10K back!! I'm still saving to be a 'crat - Alison ☺ 00:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

10k? I want my kidney back. RxS 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Same here! Except by "my", I mean "my neighbor's". EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I pay 5K and give half a liver? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as well we have two of them, eh? - Alison ☺ 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, check your browser history. If you've ever visited a site which mentions Wikipedia at some point that isn't this site, then I'm afraid you'll never be able to gain adminship anyway. The act of visiting raises suspicions that you support an external site which has discussed Wikipedia. If true this is unacceptable, as obviously a site which discusses Wikipedia might at some point make a personal attack against a Wikipedia user. Indeed, come to think of it you're better off not using the Internet at all. Make all your edits via snail mail – Gurch 21:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The first rule of Wikipedia: You Do NOT Talk About Wikipedia. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The second rule of Wikipedia: You Do NOT Talk About Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, in this particular case you can only become an "_dmin", and with hard work a "bure_ucr_t". (we also accept drachmae) NikoSilver 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation office is located in Florida, so please send all checks in U.S. dollars. And no, we're just kidding. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per low payment to Ryan count. ;) G1ggy! _{Review me!} 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't live or be suspected of living in the same state of a banned editor. CLA 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We're currently only accepting donations from extra-terrestrials. --Deskana (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - erm...yeah. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support with caveats: Per User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, kidney or kidneys to be "donated" to the Organ Bank for Forcibly Retired Admins. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call, K. The last one we de-op'd had hir liver ripped out - Alison ☺ 01:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (they never did find the incision either)

• I'll share a little secret with you Cult, but don't tell anyone else. If you edit on behalf of a secret agency, you get the developer tools for free. - Crockspot 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The best way to become an administrator is to make good contributions to the encyclopedia, work collaboratively with other editors, get familiar with things admins have to deal with through vandal-reporting and deletion discussions, and build up trust within the community. Ooooh ... sorry, I guess I gave up the cabal secrets there. Oh, and one other thing—RfA candidates whose usernames and pages make fun of other users' religious beliefs generally don't make it. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 05:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sean William and Newyorkbrad are obviously members of the "we don't make superflous and ultimately entirely unhelpful yet well-natured smart-ass comments" cabal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not when all the good lines have already been used, I don't. :)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

LOL!!! Wish mine had been as easy :) - Alison ☺ 06:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to accept the decision. Since there was only one oppose, and several strong oppositions, I think it's not been decided by consensus. WE WANT B'CRAT CHAT!!!! G1ggy! _{Review me!} 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Making fun? Beh! Cult of the Sacred Or_nge

Yeah, beh. a) Don't be a dick, b) listen to other people, c) improve articles, d) try and learn how Wikipedia works by taking part as much as you can. Do that for six months, and you'll know all you need to know. The kidney route is not advisable ... I'm still peeing funny. Neil (►) 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Trojan admin accounts

There have been a few cases recently of admins being desysopped after being found to be sockpuppeting and helping their other accounts with their admin tools: Henrygb and Runcorn are the latest examples.

It seems to me that the current state of adminship is making it more likely that we're sometimes electing Trojan accounts; that is, accounts of banned users; users with more than one admin account; users who are editing with multiple accounts. The reason I think it's more likely now is that there's an increasing focus on electing people who've concentrated on fighting vandalism and making other minor edits. Editors who do this need the tools, there's no question of that, and please don't anyone interpret what I'm saying to mean that I think these edits are of low value. I do not think that; I don't want a rehash here of writers versus vandalism fighters (or whatever). We all contribute in different ways.

My only point is that it's easier to get to adminship via 10,000 semi-automated vandalism reverts and AfD votes, than it is via writing articles and making lots of talk-page posts. It's easier for three reasons. First, it's faster. Secondly, you're less likely to get into controversy if you're just reverting vandals. Third, you leave less of a "voice," making it harder for your account to be recognized. I've been told that these are the reasons adminship-via-vandalism-reverts is the favored formula. I've been given information about multiple admin accounts being run on this basis by one person, who is allegedly in the process of preparing another one; I don't have technical evidence so there's nothing that can be done about it.

My question is: do we care about this, and if so, can anything be reasonably done about it? We may not be able to do anything about the ones that currently exist (assuming any do), but do we want to prevent the creation of any more? Or are we willing to pay the price in order to maintain openness? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting check user for every admin candidate? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really suggesting anything, Ryan, because I don't have any good ideas about this. Check user would only work if people were careless, or were using open proxies. If you knew a check user would be performed, it would be a trivial matter only to post from an internet cafe, say, for a period before the nom: a nuisance but not a huge obstacle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is, what does it hurt? If they want to beat themselves up to revert thousands of vandalism, all the more power to them. If there accounts start acting suspect, especially with the recent hype, they would be closley scrutinized. I think the cons of the situation are fairly small personally. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

With the example I gave (if it is correct), there have been non-trivial consequences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser for all admin candidates has been urged previously (most recently after the Jtkiefer/Pegasus1138 RfA last summer, which was one of my two scary introductions to the RfA page). For all we know, it's already happening. :) Newyorkbrad 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, but for the sake of transparency, it would probably have to be all admins that go through it - I'm not sure if some would agree to that however. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Would they have to agree? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the current set-up is that I can't even request a check user on the basis of the information I have, because it would be fishing, and fishing around with established admin accounts is especially frowned upon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it could be introduced as a condition of adminship, users that wish to run, or who eventually pass have to go through checkuser before being promoted. With the information you've got, I'm sure if you emailed an Arb they could give you suggestions or they may run a private checkuser. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It might even be enough if we announce that RfA candidates may be randomly check usered with no indication of frequency. One week it might be everyone; the next week it might only be a couple. That would cut down on the work, but it would maintain most of the deterrent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that, it would be one less thing to worry about. On the main page we could add the wording; Candidates may be randomly subjected to CheckUser evaluation. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I would imagine that if someone is willing to put in 10,000 edits, even if they are mostly semi-automated, they will not be stupid enough to edit off the same IP. Neil (►) 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... I made over 30,000 edits as Qxz using the same IP address as Gurch; I can't remember how long checkuser data is kept for but it would certainly have been long enough. Of couse, I never had any intention of gaining adminship (having just voluntarily resigned it) but given another month or so Qxz could probably have passed (for the record, he hates attack sites) and there's no reason why someone else in that position might not have tried to do so – Gurch 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly all admins should be subject to a massive check user now and random checks later, SqueakBox 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No. We don't do that. At worst, we give every admin the choice of being check-usered or deadmined, and even that would be overkill. A random sample, fine, but checking all admins would be overkill. And remember that if we check a large number of users then we are going to turn up some false positives. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a random sample of all existing admins would be also overkill. If and only if there is a way to identify the set of Admins who have never done anything but vandal-fighting, then maybe there would be some value in announcing a random check of a percentage of them. But I'd want more information about how many people we'd want to check, and how we're going to identify them. I don't mind the thought of checking a small percentage of would be admins, as a deterrent. Ben Aveling 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this whole thing is a violation of our current CheckUser policy and possible the privacy policy as well (that's the Foundation privacy policy, which unlike certain policies around here *cough*NPA*cough* is not subject to change without a very good reason). Right now, CheckUser is only run in narrowly-defined cases of suspected of abuse. Running it on an admin candidate with no history of abuse certainly does not fall under this provision. Right now it is explicitly not permitted for users to request a CheckUser on themselves to prove their innocence, which is what this would essentially entail. Even if this was changed, any user not suspected of abuse (any admin candidate, surely) would have to explicitly agree to a checkuser and release of its results. Are you really suggesting we start rejecting admin candidates who refuse to submit to a CheckUser? Remember how admin requirements have been rising steadily for no good reason and we are turning people down for silly reasons? Why on earth would it help to raise the requirements still higher?

And I dread to think what happens when an admin candidate has edited, even incidentally, from the same IP as an administrator. Pile-on oppose and then an indefinite ban for both parties, no doubt. That's all we need. And yes, of course, as soon as anyone who does want to abuse adminship knows that this is being done they will simply get themselves a new IP. It's not exactly hard.

One more thing... SlimVirgin, forgive me for getting a little personal, but who do you think is a using administrative sockpuppets? The rest of us are all dying to know – Gurch 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want to know. If you have good reasons, even if they are off-wiki reasons, then just email someone. Ben Aveling 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Must ...resist... urge... Must.... Oh... I give up.

Haven't ah... people mentioned someplace that RFA was becoming gameable? Once or twice? --Kim Bruning 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they did. Of course that was before you could recieve 70 opposes for something nobody actually knew was wrong. Hey... perhaps there is a good reason for the unnecessarily high requirements! After all, if no candidates are promoted, no... ah, "trojans" are promoted. Can't argue with that – Gurch 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At least one WMF wiki requires a mandatory CU for all administrators before ascendancy, if I am not much mistaken. I just can't recall which one right now. If it's critical I'll dig it up somehow, LMK. I mention that without necessarily saying it is a good or bad idea. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) er, no... I think rather it was that every voter in a particular RfA on a particular wiki was CUed by consensus of the community. Sorry. bad memory. Not the same thing at all. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not unless our privacy/CheckUser policies change significantly first. 'Fishing' is frowned upon even in cases where one account is acting squirrely... and there's no way to judge how many false positives this would turn up. At least with the password attacks, we knew the password was below a certain degree of weakness if it could be guessed. CheckUser = Vodou. -- nae'blis 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What about admins editing from shared IPs? bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these recent cases of sockpuppetry are the fault of RfA's standards. In the case of Henrygb and Runcorn, both had been around for quite a while, with plenty of contributions. Henrygb had been a sysop since early 2005, Runcorn since mid-2006; both had been around for about a year at time of their RfA, with plenty of experience in article space; both were prolific contributors, and it doesn't seem like either of them tried to game the RfA system. It just happens to be that both of them were less trustworthy than the community thought.

I'm not sure a checkuser would be much help in this case, though: What's to stop a potential sockpuppeteer from simply creating their extra accounts after they pass RfA? Krimpet (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Simply put, no. The privacy policy is extremely clear about this:

  When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public except in cases of abuse, including vandalism of a wiki page by you or by another user with the same IP address. In all cases, your IP address will be stored on the wiki servers and can be seen by Wikimedia's server administrators and by users who have been granted "CheckUser" access. Your IP address, and its connection to any usernames that share it may be released under certain circumstances (see below).

  ...

  1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement.
  2. With permission of the affected user.
  3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
  4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
  5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers.
  6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

  Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above.

• Requesting a CheckUser on all admins (or any admin) based solely on a "let's check if he maybe is helping someone" thought does not fall under any of the exemptions above (not even the last one, as it puts a "necessary" requirement), so CheckUsers are exposing themselves to unnecessary legal risks if they make blanket checks like these. And yes, there are legal risks involved—why do you think all CheckUsers must be over 18? There are legal implications with the use of the tool, so let's not even think about going through this path. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really something we can realistically expect to stop every time. If someone really wants to devote 500+ hours to "growing" an account with the perfect edit history, if they want to use a proxy for every edit, there's really nothing we can do to stop that. Thankfully people rarely feel like exerting that amount of effort... Runcorn is the only example I know of, and if you look at his pre-RFA history it was hardly a perfect job (but apparently good enough). But it's going to happen occasionally... all we can do is get better at damage control. The Runcorn thing was suspected last September, and a checkuser was denied, for example. --W.marsh 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't know how often it happens. We have in fact no idea whatsoever, which is an odd thing given that we're a top-ten website, and that our articles often turn up as the #1 hit on Google. Yet we have no idea how many people (as opposed to how many accounts) are actually administering the website, and how many of them (if any) are banned users. We can't have perfect security, and wouldn't want to because we'd lose our openness. But does that mean we must have zero security? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you've forgotten, this is a wiki. We are founded on the principle that anyone anywhere in the world can do what they like to any page they like. We do not have "zero security", that would be giving steward and developer access to anonymous users. Anyway, I don't really see why the exact number of administrators is something we would want to know, beyond a rough figure, or even can know. Even if we were certain that every administrator is a distinct user, many have been inactive for years and can hardly be considered to be "administering the website". Even if we decided upon some arbitrary cut-off for the purposes of definition, there are dozens if not hundreds of users who do mostly maintenance tasks that I would certainly count under "administering the website" because that's essentially what they are doing; the slightly different nature of their work necessitated by a technical restriction doesn't actually make any significant difference there.

Finally, lots of administrators and non-administrators legitimately use separate accounts without revealing them as they are entitled to do by out current policy. While possession of adminship on two accounts simultaneously is not permitted, activity on another account is perfectly acceptable provided that no policies are violated when the accounts are considered together (3RR, multiple voting and so forth). If the user has discarded one account and created another and is not even active on their original account any longer, there is even less of a concern – and CheckUser data for the older account would have expired by the time they requested adminship anyway, so nobody would be any the wiser.

In short, some of the things you seem to have an issue with are permitted by current policy; try getting the policy changed, first (and no, you're not allowed to hijack RfA to do so). What's more, even a checkuser on every account wouldn't stop the kind of abuse you seem to want to stop. Is this in fact just an excuse to start opposing perfectly good candidates for "too much maintenance work" and being "not controversial enough"? Reluctant though some people seem to be to believe it, not every eager newcomer is a sockpuppet of an older account. How do you think such a user would feel if they were nominated, in good faith, for adminship, opposed to within an inch of their life for "not being controversial enough", nominated again after another few months in which they'd participated in lots of controversial things to appease the opposers and then opposed again for a combination of "oh no, not this guy again" and "too disruptive" and "might abuse the tools"? – Gurch 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To repeat a previous comment I made on this page, there will always be people who will game the system. We'll never stop everyone. But when someone is caught breaking the community's trust, they must be dealt with severely. In many ways all of this is like the laws in every culture and country. It's impossible to stop all crimes but when someone is caught, they should be punished. As humans, that's about the best we are capable of doing to prevent crimes/gaming the system from occurring. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not a great solution for the reasons already mentioned: privacy policy, and the fact that it's not foolproof - it has false-positives and false-negatives, and the impact of both will be magnified if it's run indiscriminately without applying some sort of pre-test probability metric. The best solution might be to use the RfA process wisely. It's been out there for some time now that RfA can be gamed by racking up a huge number of vandalism reverts and a few AfD votes, supporting a bunch of RfA's to garner goodwill, and avoiding any kind of contentious issues. Like SlimVirgin, I'm not downplaying the importance of RC patrol or countervandalism... but: there are an awful lot of RfA's where Q1 = "I want the tools to fight vandals", Q2 = "My proudest accomplishments are fighting vandalism", and Q3 = "I've never been in any conflicts". I think we should scrutinize such applications closely. How necessary are the tools for countervandalism work? AIV and RFPP are rarely seriously backlogged, and can be cleared quickly if a backlog develops. Countervandalism work can be done quickly and semi-automatically, which article-writing can't, so in some ways, article content contributions signal a greater commitment of time and effort, even though they fall outside the "admin" arena. And some involvement in conflict or contentious issues is a plus in my book, because how else can you judge how a candidate will react to the difficult situations that come with the mop? Yet many good candidates are afraid to run because they fear the Supreme-Court-confirmation-style approach to prior conflicts. I'd suggest that the best way to reduce the burden of gamed RfA's and sockpuppet admins is to look closely at how we judge admin applicants, and especially to scrutinize accounts which fit the profile - heavy vandalism reverts, token AfD/RfA !votes, and lack of engagement in the content aspects of the encyclopedia. But then those are just my biased opinions. MastCell ^Talk 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Low article-talk-page edits is one of the things I worry about. There's usually high user-talk edits from putting tags on users' pages.

One of the reasons adminship-via-vandalism works is that a lot of the voters focus on vandalism themselves, so they vote for who they know. And the more the focus is on vandalism, the less attractive the process becomes to others. I've had to advise several people who want to stand for adminship to do some vandalism fighting and voting in AfDs before the nom, which they really shouldn't have to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that low article-talk-page edits are really the substantial concern you consider them to be. I agree that a lack of communication with other users could be seen as an issue, but the temptation to reduce this to misleading metrics must be avoided. For example, at the time of my adminship request I had several thousand article talk edits and nobody raised any objections. That they would have done if I did not is worrying, as all of those edits were archiving-related and I'd discussed articles only a handful of times; did that affect my ability to use the rollback button, edit protected pages, fix bad page moves and speedy delete garbage? I don't think it did. Suggesting that discussion of articles is a necessity seems to be asking too much – not everyone can do everything; there are people who write articles and people who do maintenance. The latter group are more suited to adminship, would benefit most from having it and are more likely to use it once acquired; article writers, on the other hand, are usually quite happy with the important task of writing articles – Gurch 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Checkuser will not stop this problem. If this really is a big problem, and I'm not convinced it is, then we need a real solution, maybe introduce a class of junior admin, for eg, with the right to block and unblock new users, but not established ones, with the right to protect, unprotect and salt, but not the right to delete or undelete, etc. But first, we'd need to demonstrate that there is a big problem that we can't handle with our existing capabilities, and I'm far from sure that's the case? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's big in terms of numbers, and we have no idea of how many (if any) it involves. And then there's big in terms of potential consequences. The accounts I've been told about allegedly caused some non-trivial problems. I'm sorry that I'm having to talk round it, but the exact details don't matter anyway, because you can imagine the problems a malicious banned user might be able to cause with admin accounts. I don't mean deleting the main page; I mean acting as if you're a normal admin but in fact always having one eye on causing problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't magic. Someone who goes to the trouble of months worth of work at setting up a false admin account will almost surely also take the trouble to segregate the accounts' IP addresses. There are other means of detection of socks, though. What we really need is just more people paying attention for socklike behavior. I'm not going to spill all the beans about how even clever sockpuppeteers screw up and leave trails (because I'd like them continue to do it), but there's always a trail. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is always a trail, but sometimes it's subtle, and it can be hard to persuade people, because you need an eye for detail, and the people you're explaining it to have to be willing to follow that detail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, is this really such a bad thing as people are making it out to be? Sure, if someone devotes themselve to making thousands of small, useful edits, they can game RfA... and get away with abusing their powers as an admin for how long before they get caught? There are probably many more people, too, who do large amounts of helpful gruntwork with the goal of becoming an admin, but who for one reason or another end up never getting to that point. It seems to me that, in all likelyhood, the good that they did, willingly or not, while trying to "game the system" probably outweighs the harm they managed to get away from as an admin. Additionally, and more importantly... it will always be possible to become an admin. It's just not designed to be particularly difficult; there is practically a 'default' assumption that people become admins after a certain amount of time + contributions if they want to and don't screw up (and I think that that is the way it should work--we badly need more admins, not less.) We can't read candidate's minds, and there are always ways to hide sockpuppets. If you want to stop people who become admins just to help their other accounts of whatever, you need to increase scrutiny on people who have already passed RFA, since that's when the sockpuppets will really "unmask" themselves. --Aquillion 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on meta

I've added a proposal to add a section allowing random checks on RfAs. Please see here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I do not think that your proposal is permissible under the current check-user policy. WP:RFCU states, in bold no less, that "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases." Random checks of RfAs neither constitutes an attempt to solve a "difficult case" nor is a last resort of any kind. Indeed, Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence", which is essentially what this amounts to, is expressly not allowed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Black falcon, checkuser isn't some toy to be used at random. Majorly (talk | meet) 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is I think aware that her proposal is not permissible under present policy. Otherwise she would just have made a request to the checkusers rather than proposing a change in policy on meta. The questions is whether the policy should be changed as she proposes. I think there is definitely some validity in her proposal - this isn't something that regular RfA scrutiny can determine. WjBscribe 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is against policy is the reason that the proposal was made. Otherwise, why would we need to propose it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it could work, though. Who are they going to be checked against? The problem is, it's fine to say that anyone who applies for adminship is giving permission for a checkuser, but you need to look at the private information behind at least two accounts for a checkuser to yield useful information. Who are these adminship candidates going to be checkuser'ed against, and how are we going to justify looking at those people's details? They're not running for adminship. It might catch, I suppose, someone who is an absolutely infamous sockpuppeteer... if the person performing the checkuser happened to be the one who examined that sockpuppeteer, and they happen to remember enough details to make the connection. But I can't see that happening very often. --Aquillion 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We could check them against Jimbo; it's important that we ensure he isn't creating a sockdrawer. ;) On a more serious note, I'd be fine with being the second target account; I trust the checkuser clerks, and my alternate account is well within policy, so I couldn't care less if someone went snooping. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Aquillion, you could check to see whether the IPs they're editing from are used by others, and if so, whether there are editing similarities between the accounts. You could also check to see whether they're editing from open proxies. Checkuser isn't a magic tool that tells you everything you need to know, but it can help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that random checkusers go against the principle of assuming good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Random checks (whether at Wikipedia, airports, or military checkpoints) presuppose that everyone is potentially guilty until proven otherwise. Since security personnel are not required to (perhaps not even encouraged to) AGF, they have an justification for random checks. What would ours be? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonjonbt

Another shining example of how the wikipedia community loves to bite our newcomers that don't understand our policies and think they would make a good administrator. No one with 87 edits knows how we work. Comments such as "wicked-strong oppose", "your just a middle schooler" and "it's starting to snow" are just plain unhelpful. Please please try and offer a bit more advice before shooting them to the ground. Unfortunately this RfA was closed before I had chance to hit back at the villains and offer my own constructive advice to the candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, in such obvious cases of failed RfAs, a simple note is more than enough. I do try to take the bite off of premie RfAs I close with {{User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA}}, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just seen your note to the candidate - that's what we should be saying to them, telling them how they can improve, it's just a pitty there weren't more users participating there like you. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That was a kind note that EVula left on Jonjonbt's talk page. People would leave just their signature, with no rational arguments, in RfAs of more experienced users but they feel it necessary to leave more and more biting and incisive comments to say the same thing over and over again (to the effect of you are too new, get out of here) on the RfA of an obvious newbie. - TwoOars 19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder again, we really need requirements of who can request. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But how could we enforce them? New users will still be able to list. Unless any user was free to remove a request that didn't meet the requirements. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, other wikis like Commons and Meta have requirements before you can request. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave alone the enforcement; There can never be a consensus on the requirements in the first place, I think. :) We'll never agree on the minimum time or editcount (as we can see in Hmwith's RfA).- TwoOars 19:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed four "no chance" RfAs recently; I think the highest edit count on one of them was 400-something (for one of the editors, their very first edits were to create the RfA). I'm not saying that those should be the baseline for a standard level of participation, I'm just mentioning it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed three RFA's, and I'm not even an Admin. I think there should be some minimum standards (like minimum 1000 edits in total, for example). Evilclown93 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See, there lies the trouble. There might be exceptions. For eg, what about cases where the candidate is an established user on some other wikipedia (like a candidate on RfA right now)? Once we set a minimum standard like that, a lot of users would blindly quote that and there would be no room for discussion on the merits of the case.- TwoOars 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that exceptions can be made... to an extent. En's policies are different from any other Wikipedia's; just because Editor X has been an admin on the Russian Wikipedia doesn't mean that they know all of our policies and guidelines. I think that's one of the perpetual arguments against a "speedy promote" of inter-wiki admins (just as how my contributions here don't mean diddly over at Commons, where I'd also like to become an admin). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset) My opinions-

• There shouldn't be any guidelines in order to apply for RfA; it'll be a headache determining them. Plus, it's not difficult to close an RfA if the candidate hasno chance.
• I find the en Wikipedia having the most strictest of policies, so being an admin on another Wikimedia project doesn't necessarily mean you can be an admin here, and doesn't guarantee that you know the policies here.
• Going back to the original topic, I believe that the comments on the RfA were a little harsh. We could try not to bite the newcomers by just leaving a small note. There's no need to taunt the candidate; I'm presuming he has applied in good faith and not in disruption. Sr13 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is a totally different debate altogether but opinion has been fairly divided on Yonidebest's RfA. That means there is no consensus about that. And in my opinion, adminship should be given as a matter of course, based on trustworthiness, ability to learn from mistakes and ability to work non-disruptively in a community. Familiarity with policies shouldn't be that big a concern because it is not rocket science, neither is using admin tools(I assume :). After all when anybody can create an account and edit wikipedia, why shouldn't good faith editors known not to goof up majorly get admin tools? And its not like admin actions can't be reversed when a new admin makes an honest mistake or two in the learning stage. - TwoOars 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)