Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

RfA Review - Baselining the Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An alternative RfA approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfA is a vote, and there have often been votes that don't make much more sense than "I love cake." Enigma ^message 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(another) RFA Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm a bit surprised to see you say this, considering you said yourself that the bureaucrats treat it as a vote. Enigma ^message 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tables

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

It would look something like this

RFA

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

RFB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've added a link to update the RFB report; the link goes automatically to the edit window for the report itself. Please revert me if I erred, but I thought it might be more convenient (for me, at least) to be able to update the table without digging around to find the link. The thought of actually bookmarking the table's page never occured to me, to be honest. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The bold RfA approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Channel ®   23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To Channel_R - I have read it. Beam 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Unfortunately, that's a bad idea for technical reasons. Administrators just have way too much power over the software. (There are some pretty horrific examples of what an admin could do nowadays; I'm not listing them due to WP:BEANS, just in case there are any sleeper admins out there.) --ais523 13:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it not strike you as somewhat inconsistent to oppose a change to the RfA process because it may promote some bad administrators when, by your own admission, there are already some bad administrators, promoted by the present system? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the original suggestion, no. This sounds like less candidates, and less people making the decision. It sounds like taking the decision from the community and replacing it with people in "seniority", and only allowing "senior" members to run at all. No, your edit count does not make you more suited to be an admin, and being an admin or crat does not make you more suitable for choosing admins. _{1 != 2} 14:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Two rather big objections to this proposal. First, the edit count (25000 doesn't matter, this problem is for any arbitrary number) is a major invitation to "editcountitis", which rewards people who write and submit a rough draft, and then spend 100 edits proofreading it, over those who take care to get it right the first time round. Edit counts are also favor vandalism patrollers over content writers, I have nothing ill to say about vandalism patrollers, but they tend to get in more edits for the same amount of work. Second, the proposal does not take into account factors which many RFA participants value; interaction with others, participation in policy discussion, participation in deletion discussions, writing encyclopedia content and so on, and any semi-automatic process which doesn't take into account those factors which so many RFA participants value so highly, and often for good reason, will probably not reflect the will of the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About the edit count, please see my answer to Nousernamesleft below. Your other concerns I understand but I'm more or less expecting that the n admins that the candidate has to find to back him/her will look into that kind of thing, just like they do now when they nominate an RfA candidate. I would trust this small group of admins to judge that.  Channel ®   23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Channel, you should read others' comments before accusing them of not reading yours. Mine clearly addressed that issue, yet you ignored everything past the first sentence. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I read your remarks too. They're the ones with "ludicrous idea" and "terrible criteria", right? I don't have a lot to say about them. There are more people who think edit counts are a bad idea, yet AFAIK the current RfA process also expects candidates to have at least a 1000 (excuse me if I'm wrong). That's one of the reasons I included an edit count into my proposal. I am well aware that vandal fighters, especially the Hugglers, run up huge edit counts and that it's unfair to compare these to an article writer's stats. I think that's a detail that should be sorted later. Or are you saying edit counts should be abolished completely?  Channel ®   23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't want to outline any opinions of my own here as I'm currently working on an RfA Review, I will add one observation on this and similar topics that I've seen spring up over the past few weeks is that they seem to be solutions in search of a problem to solve. The real crux is that many editors who have become well versed in mechanics and actuality of RfA think they know and understand what the problems with the process are and set about trying to generate a solution based on their own perception. While this approach is backed with good intentions, it quite often fails to develop concensus when compared with the myriad number of other perceptions held by other editors. To me, it makes more sense to gather everyone's perceptions, opinions and thoughts on the process as they stand at the moment and use that as the basis for performing analysis, inspection and proposal shaping. Of course, concensus may be that there is no better way, but at least we'll know from exhaustive, conclusive research. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are, Channel, and I completely mean it when I say "ludicrous idea" and "terrible criteria." I don't mind you arguing that my remarks are wrong, but ignoring them is something that I can't abide. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, you already said that. And as I explained above, I just didn't have much to say about them. But anyway, you got your answer.  Channel ®   00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1,000 isn't even a bad requirement. I can stack up 100 edits a day (not that I do often) as can many other users, such as User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, and we are not even hugglers (how I despise that name). I personally have 1 FA, 1 GA, 1 FLC, 1 GAC, 17 DYK?s, and I've only been around since January. Granted I did have a 12-hour block in January for harassment, so that isn't 6 months yet and I probably won't be running for a while. But I certainly don't think that makes me a jerk, and I try to improve as much as possible. Of course nowadays the average person at RFA considers themselves a major vandal fighter. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

edit count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I passed (unopposed) with just shy of 4k, this past December. I'd say anything under 3k is a long shot, but not impossible. - Revolving Bugbear 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanket statement: What's the minimum? Technically and formally there is none. We all know that edit count alone is not sufficient to judge a candidate's abilities, however, any user that has under 1,500 edit is unlikely to possess the necessary experience. That is, of course, my own opinion. Although, I'd be hard-pressed to say it wasn't a popular one. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

When I was new to RFA, I opposed a candidate with 2,400 edits. He passed and turned out to be absolutely great. To me, 3000 is enough to gain the experience and knowledge. It's enough to review and get an idea of the candidate's abilities. The problem is we sometimes make blanket assumptions or judge too harshly over a mistake or a misstatement. That's because we've all seen what happens when an unsuitable candidate wreaks mayhem on the project. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The lowest successful RFA I've heard of was 1,500. That passed in the Stone Age, before all these wonderful tools. Read about it on this board. Can't remember who. Unless a candidate w/ 1500 edits was phenomenal or had multi wiki experieince, I'd be inclined to oppose. Dlohcierekim 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

a reiteration of an RfA Mechanism idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well considering your proposal quoted Jimbo's No Big Deal comment from several years ago, I felt that quoting a more recent Jimboism would be the appropriate issue. But, since you want a detailed answer, RfA is not a big deal, who has the tools is not a big deal, what they do with those tools is a big deal. Therefore, I only prefer people I trust not to misuse those tools when I comment at an RFA. My general criteria are listed above, but they are general, I frequently diverge from them, if given a good reason. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The point is, if people can't even agree on loose standards, they're definitely not going to agree on standards set in stone, after which anyone will become an admin. Therefore you can't just mechanically assign the bit after a certain point, which makes this proposal unfeasible. - Bobet 11:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is (maybe it's "the" point too), is that standards shouldn't be worked on before the idea of auto administrating is accepted. If we can't agree that ANY standards could work than who cares about the actual standards? Beam 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, but you were the one who mentioned a specific standard. And yes, the whole proposal is pointless, since there simply aren't ANY standards people are going to ever agree on. - Bobet 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We all have our own ideas. We have to put them together to come up wit consnesus. That's waht makes the process good. It matters not what I think about a candidate-- what matters is consensus. Maube my standards are too low-- who can say. Dlohcierekim 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am greatly amused that I have been a sysop for about four years and I still wouldn't meet MBisanz's proposed (and presumably tongue-in-cheek) edit count standard. (I only broke ten thousand edits in January; I got my sysop bit somewhere around my two thousandth edit.) The vast majority of editors who have five-digit edit counts after less than a year of contributions have shown great proficiency with automated editing tools like Twinkle (and now rollback), but have not necessarily demonstrated any of the other skills or judgement that we might expect of administrators.

Playing vandal whack-a-mole is certainly a job that needs to be done, and editors and admins who enjoy that type of work are welcome to it. Correcting typos and broken links is a valuable service to our readers, and I would never discourage any editor from doing these things. I'm nevertheless saddened when I see a good candidate who has made a couple thousand well-crafted edits rejected on the basis of insufficient edit count. Any threshold based on edit count – whether that threshold is for an automated process or is imposed by a blinkered human judge – will discourage new editors from engaging in discussion, from making thoughtful edits, from doing research and thinking before they act. It's unfortunate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

section break

I think that, right now, any proposal for a new RfA mechanism is solving the wrong problem.

Any proposed system of automatically granting adminship, not to mention a system of arbitrarily granting it, will suffer from a key problem: there is no quick and effective way of removing the tools in cases of abuse, drama, or damage to Wikipedia. Under the current system, RfA contributors know this, which is partly why RfA is more of a big deal than it should be.

It seems to me, then, that the best approach is:-

1. Stop trying to fix RfA.
2. Focus on the problem that (perhaps) we can agree on - making a way to remove the tools as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I have a sneaking suspicion that, if #2 can be achieved, we'll get back on the road to adminship being no big deal, RfA contributors and discussions will lighten up a bit, and the whole process will be a bit less of an ordeal for everyone.

Of course, even with such a quick-de-sysop process, there is still the question of whether we would want to use it - to deliberately change the RfA process in such a way that would produce more false positives, i.e. more bad admins. It's not enough to say, "don't worry, it's easy to get rid of them when we have to". It's better not to have to, for everyone concerned. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:ER

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

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

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

Hmmm - I would like some more reviews. <hint! hint!> ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

People used to do WP:ER before nomming, but then we got WP:ACOACH. ffm 20:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arienh4

If anyone would like to check my work. Dlohcierekim 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Procedurally, it looks good. Did you also update the list of unsuccessful RFA's? I'll add that it'd normally be hinky for someone who participated to close the RFA, but seeing as how the candidate very specifically withdrew to you, I'm unconcerned. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I added it to User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological), as appears to be customary. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I never thought of the fact that I'd commented. Knew I missed something. Drat. Dlohcierekim 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone else like to make that close official, I should not have closed that. Dlohcierekim 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, it's fine – if the candidate withdraws, it is generally accepted that anyone may close the RfA. With regards to the paperwork afterwards, User:Enigmaman/SNOW has handy instructions for all the steps that need to be followed. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Very much a no stress closure. Fair to be cautious but don't beat yourself up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed, it's no problem. Your well-stated comment is probably why the candidate asked you to withdraw them, anyway. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the whole system of RfA is now ruined. Great job Dlohcierekim. Great job. Beam 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean more ruined than it already is? Stop this naughty speak. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, Beam, that's not exactly nice. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was exactly serious either. Just needs an </sarcasm> added...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry Beam, just saw the hidden comment... =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? It's like a gift. . . . Dlohcierekim 02:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions on specific cases

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but is it wise to have questions on the handling of prior cases at RfBs? I can give 2 seasons why its a bad idea:

1. If you talk of a controversial case, you will risk biased voting from those who took opposite sides in the debate.
2. There is a natural pressure to answering "optional" questions, and there are no safeguards for the candidate if he/she chooses not to answer (which is a distinct issue by itself).
3. Discussing past cases is basically dragging criticism of current bureaucrats and their decisions into RfB, inadvertently pressurizing them and the candidate. Surely RfBs are not meant for criticism of bureaucratic decisions of the past, nor is it wise to try to determine that the candidate will promise to or look to do things differently as per one's bias.

Obviously its acceptable to lay out purely hypothetical cases to test the policy knowledge of bureaucrats as is done in RfAs for administrators. You can ask a candidate if he/she would promote a hypothetical case with 78%-80% approval, but to ask about specific cases such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 and others is not appropriate, IMO. Vishnava _talk 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of the example of U.S. Supreme Court nominees who have declined to answer how they would judge cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Obviously, politicians would like to rig the Court with people who share their ideologies, and not merely on the merits and expertise, but should we risk this here? Vishnava _talk 15:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While ignoring "option" questions is frowned upon, declining to answer one with a well reasoned explanation shouldn't cause too many automatic opposes (I'd hope). As for whether it's wise... I don't know, with hypothetical situations the answer is almost always "it depends", because you just don't have enough information to make a decision, so if you want to know how someone will make decisions you need to give specific examples. I suppose the question is really one of how political RfB should be - are we deciding based on competency and trustworthiness, or on whether the candidate agrees with our interpretation of policy (which is intentionally vague)? --Tango (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think declining to answer it would be OK. While Vishnava makes some good points, they might just be outweighed by such a question being the single most relevant question in an RfB. Sometimes rehashing is bad, but there is a clear reason to doing it when discussing an old RfA in an RfB. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I answered that very same question regarding DHMO's RFA on my RFB. Some people liked my response, others didn't. But I didn't decline to answer it because I knew that if that RFA had run until its close that some bureaucrat somewhere would have to make a call. Useight (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we find a way to make sure that the candidate doesn't feel pressurized to answer such questions, especially since they are designated as "optional." I think it should be emphasized more clearly that its OK not to answer. I think even a brief statement of why the candidate doesn't want to answer can be misinterpreted or seen as some sort of weakness. Vishnava _talk 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the first step in figuring out why the optional questions really aren't all that optional is to determine the possible reasons that a candidate might not want to answer them. If none of them are really that valid of an excuse, then that could explain why RFA !voters don't like to see them left blank. Useight (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)While I think this optional-question thing is a problem at RfAs, I think that any RfB candidate who has a real chance of passing should be able to handle the whole optional-question thing in their own manner. If someone wants to oppose because a candidate isn't answering questions, that is their prerogative, I'm not sure what we can do to change that. However, I think a good candidate will be able to handle the optional questions in a way that seems acceptable to most/everyone, even if sometimes that means not answering. (after reading e/c). Agree with Useight, in RfBs, most questions should be answered, and if not, an adequate explanation should be given. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions such as those are the only relevant questions at RFB. Do I care about how the candidate is going to use his bot flagging and name changing tools? No, because they are mundane tasks that could be done by anybody. The only aspect of being a 'crat that is important is how they are going to close controversial RFAs. And so it is relevant to ask them how they would close x or y controversial RFA. And as for the bias aspect - I doubt most people will care which way the nominee says he would close it, only the reasoning they have for closing it as such. Certainly that is why I voted the way I did at Useight's RFB. I would be concerned about a nominee who would refuse to answer a question like that, as it suggests that they don't want their reasonings scrutinised. I would definitely oppose if they refused to answer - if they decline to give their opinions on the only aspect of 'cratship that is important, how am I supposed to judge their competence at it? Naerii - Talk 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the nominee answers the question by explaining why they don't want to answer that's still an answer, and I think that should be acceptable. Beam 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So why can't we be more frank and make all questions mandatory to answer? I think the candidate has most to be confused about - the least that can be done is to let 'em know what exactly is needed to be done. It would certainly be a problem if Naerii said that he's opposing b'coz an "optional question" was not answered. Vishnava _talk 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If Naerii was the one to pose the question and labeled it "Optional" than Naerii is the one who is wrong to judge based on it not being answered. However, if it's labeled as an "important" or "mandatory" question regarding Naerii's support and it is labeled as such than the nominee takes a risk by not answering. That's pretty simple. Beam 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution is not to make the questions mandatory, but to just take out the "optional" qualifier. "Questions for the candidate:" sort of thing. At least that will end some of the confusion, if not the opposes. 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, Naerii, for using your name for examples :) Each question has its importance to the process and everyone involved. Most questions are not trick questions or problematic, but just 1 such question can confuse/affect the candidate. Even if somone like Naerii says his/her question is "mandatory," you're putting it amongst "optional" questions; people don't ask questions if it didn't have a bearing on their evaluation of the candidate. Is it going to be fair to those questioners if Naerii's question is now deemed more important? And Naerii's "mandatory" question becomes a tricky situation, b'coz others are watching and going to read what happens between Naerii and the candidate, giving Naerii's vote undue influence. If a person asks a "mandatory question" on DHMO 3 it will influence the process even if it is considered by others as not-so-important. I just think we should make it clear, make things fair for the candidate. Vishnava _talk 17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, my concern is about fairness to the candidate. He/she knows that not answering an optional question and a question deemed "mandatory" by a particular user are not afforable risks. So just make all questions compulsory. If you're asking a question that doesn't necessarily affect and judge the candidate, then why ask it and dilute the process, making things a bit tougher on the candidate? Vishnava _talk 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you call it mandatory or not. If someone's refusing to answer questions about their reasonings during their RFB, it doesn't say much about how they're going to answer questions about their reasoning after it. It's impossible to get rid of 'crats that make shitty judgements - if someone wants to wait until their position is secure before they make controversial decisions, that's their perogative, but I'm certainly not going to support them in doing it. Naerii - Talk 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And as a point of reference, I've only ever asked two questions in RFA/RFB in the year or so that I've been editing Wikipedia, and I've never opposed someone for their answers to them - in fact one of the questions was never answered. So no, I'm not going to ask a question about a controversial RFA and then oppose if they don't answer it. Don't put words into my mouth, thanks. Naerii - Talk 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I never (nor did anyone else) sought to put words into your mouth. I apologize if I appeared to be doing so - it was inappropriate to use your name to give examples. Vishnava _talk 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If i may throw in my two cents again here, I think that some of the problem - and frustration - stems from the intent behind the questions. Sometimes the questions asked are geared specifically toward the candidate. People ask, "Why did you do this?" or, "What was your reasoning behind that?". To me, these are valid, fair questions that help the RfA process along and help produce a more thoroughly vetted candidate. The poorer questions are the ones where there is no discernable reason. Sometimes, people appear to ask questions merely to be "important" - this happens when folks who are just starting to participate in the RfA process think that they need to participate on a higher level, and refactor a few questions they had seen in prior RfAs. Other poor questions are simply substitutes for research - the editor asking is apparently not inclined to actually look through the applicable contributions, but simply asks an open-ended, vague question. Then, there are the editors who ask multiple questions - in my almost-ending RfA, one editor asked six open-ended questions at once. I declined to answer (and explained why on my talk page). Without there being better questions, I see absolutely no reason why they should be compulsory. Tan | 39 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly endorse everything Tan just said. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Naerii - Talk 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I still have my template handy. :-) RfA additional questions are not for fishing. giggy _(:O) 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory to a point. Obviously privacy policy, the fifth amendment, and common sense should not be superseded. — CharlotteWebb 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern is fairness to the candidate - if you say questions are "optional," then it should not affect the RfA if the candidate chose not to answer. If you say "mandatory," then that is a clear signal also. We should eradicate any possible consternation or confusion. Tan's statement about intentions and types of questions are well and fine, but how is the candidate supposed to judge which is what, without confusion or fear of the outcome? Vishnava _talk 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The short answer, Vishnava, is that they just have to. There's no easy solution to this, as apparent by the revolving door discussions we've had multiple times on multiple talk pages. The candidate should be able to choose which questions to answer. The editors need to have common sense to determine if a non-response is put on the scales. My current RfA is a good example - there were a couple opposes (or neutrals), and comments based on my non-responses, but in the long run, the majority of editors saw that this was not an issue. As long as the 'crats can continue to use common sense and some judgment when closing, we'll be fine - and there's not much we can do but continue to remind people that the questions are indeed optional. Tan | 39 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I suppose you're right. It just seems hypocritical, but a lot of things in life are anyway. Vishnava _talk 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And I am apprehensive about the idea of explaining why one didn't answer an "optional" question. If it is termed "optional" to begin with, why should the candidate feel a need to justify not answering it. The questioner has already agreed that not answering is an option, without specifying a particular reason. And if you take time to explain, then you might as well just answer and have done with it. What I would like is just to ask a set of pertinent questions and receive answers, where the bearing on the process is clear-cut and fair to the candidate. Vishnava _talk 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, by the time someone gets to an RFB they're going to have a pretty good idea of what they can get away with ignoring and what they can't. Naerii - Talk 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss policy, which should be fair and clear. Vishnava _talk 17:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy on questions. Naerii - Talk 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, standards then. I am sure everyone has a right to see RfAs/RfBs be clear and fair. Vishnava _talk 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...Or is this Uncyclopedia satire on us chillingly accurate? Uncyclopedia:UnBooks:A Year with the Rouge Tribe. bibliomaniac15 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just you. (actually, I didn't click on the link, that's just my automatic response when I see a subheader of "is it just me..."  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the uncyclopedia very entertaining. I'd post there all the time if I wasn't so busy here :) Kingturtle (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I used to edit there, but stopped after December last year. Although it gets much less attention from people who have simply no idea what they're contributing to than this encyclopedia does, there's enough trash that gets put on it to render it, at times, completely unamusing. Lradrama 09:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite enjoyed that. It's better than the Jimbo fan fiction(!). Neıl 龱 10:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review - Prepping for Questions

Just a quick message to say we're almost ready to start the Question part of the RfA Review. You can find the proposed question page here. Again, please feel free to add your thoughts on the main review talk page here. Many thanks for all your help so far! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How?

How the heck does this page work?? I would like to be a rollback person, but, is this where to put it??? TheThingy ^Talk 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want rollback, you need to request it at requests for rollback. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you can use Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. Useight (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on what's a reasonable request? Dlohcierekim 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My criteria is the ability to ask me politely. I believe others take it more seriously; I really don't understand why. If anyone's having trouble getting rollback, just ask me nicely (and spell your message correctly). Neıl 龱 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the Arefay (also known as RFA) talk page, There is consensus that no-consensus is consensus.--Kumioko (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(lol wut) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Can one of you help me get a picture of myself up on wikipedia. I want it for my user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoplight18 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Click upload file in the tool box. follow the directions. I believe you will release it to the public domain, it's been a while sense I uploaded an image here. Dlohcierekim 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

or Click here. Dlohcierekim 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RREV - Questions are up

The Question phase of the review process has now started. Anyone and everyone is invited to complete the review questions by following the instructions at WP:RREV/Q. Feel free to share your thoughts and opinions on the current RfA process. Remember, the more responses we get, the more meaningful the research is. Many thanks in advance for your contributions! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gazimoff, how long can we respond to the Questions? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say how impressed I am with everything to do with this exercise. Terrific work and kudos to all those involved. I just hope that it produces actionable results worthy of the effort. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)