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!

Mikegodwin's promotion

Mikegodwin's RfA was closed as speedy success in spite of the large number of oppose votes (the tally shows 74%, I hope it is right). It is appropriate that Mike Godwin got the tools. I'd just like to note that, per Cecropia's comment in the RfA, such ill-thought actions where the RfA is submitted even if it did not have to, and then it was closed as a success when it started failing, is bad for process. I don't think this should be repeated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To say it was "closed as success when it started failing" is inaccurate. I informed Florence of the situation, and she decided to act (presumably) as soon as she read my message. I do, however, appreciate your point. --Deskana (banana) 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I trust the timing was a coincidence. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The RfA was a bad idea, it put folks in an impossible situation. A sensible end to a dramagasm. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the proper end. Thanks to Anthere, and for making sure it was marked as a Foundation decision. The fact that it was failing when it was closed just highlights the fact that we should perhaps think twice before posting RfAs. -- Cecropia 00:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On what basis was it "failing"? --bainer (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

74% seems to be in the amrgin of promotion, being 1% off of the generally accepted and promoted 75%. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad it has closed as a foundation decision, it really is not a matter of trust as we don't know this person. Until(1 == 2) 03:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself :-) He's hardly unknown to everyone! I've known him personally over a decade (which is why I did not vote in the RfA; conflict of interest/prejudiced view). You can trust him. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen so many people trust a lawyer they weren't familiar with (much less one they are). the_undertow ^talk 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you have. Prodego ^talk 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I have seen it all. Thanks! the_undertow ^talk 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just hope for future reference if the Foundation needs to give someone admin access for their job duties, they just do it... let the community know at ANI or Pump, and move on with it. The RFA isn't really necessary as someone (sorry I don't recall who) pointed out; the sysop status ends when the individual leaves the position, as in the case of Danny.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The point was, if they had been elected by the community in a RfA, their sysop bit would not have been removed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BradPatrick is still an administrator. He was given the tools as he was the foundation's legal counsel, but he's never given them up. I don't have a problem with that. --Deskana (banana) 08:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether BradPatrick should have to go through RfA after his resignation was discussed at the time (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 86#RFA for Brad?). Everyone who commented opposed the idea of an RfA as being process for the sake of process. I am inclined to agree. WjBscribe 09:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with WJB here: process for the sake of process is a waste of everybody's time ~ Anthøny 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone who commented" excludes at least one (now former) user in that discussion. Let's not give the impression of false consensus; had I been there, I'd have agreed with an RFA, since BP was given the tools as part of his job. I'd expect MikeGodwin to go through an RFA if/when he steps down as legal counsel too, for the record. -- nae'blis 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would only expect him to step down if he ceased his employment if I felt it would benefit Wikipedia, if he is doing a good job as admin it would not be helpful. Until(1 == 2) 13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that this shouldn't be repeated, but at least someone stepped in before we had to deal with our legal counsel failing RfA and getting sysop tools. It could have been worse, and now he has more incentive to use his adminship sparingly. -128.12.68.95 21:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Recall

The acceptability of offering ones self for Recall in an RfA, while it has a noble sentiment there is no way to enforce such an offer. I think that we either commit to it being a policy that all admins and bureaucrats are subject to with a defined process, or removed it from the RfA process so such noble sentiments cant be expressed to exploit wavering opinions. Either way the current recall process is totally meaningless as there is no obligation placed on the person to uphold their stance, neither is there any formal process as such a person may place unrealistic conditions on what is required before they are willing consider any action. Personally I see the current recall process as an expression of self doubt in the trust that the community is placing in them. Yet a formal recall process would be one way of resolving the issue of how to address the actions of an Admin when they do digress from policy. notice I have questioned Elonka in her current RfA, and in some ways it got me thinking about what recall is, the questions I raise here are not intended as a reflection in anyway on that RfA or Elonka. Gnangarra 10:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you suggest a system be brought in similar to m:Meta:Administrators/confirm? Or do you suggest formalising WP:RECALL? ~ Anthøny 10:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean prohibiting making the offer of recall in RfA, I see no harm in it, especially since you and others are prepared to challenge users who raise it. I don't think we need a policy on it; it's unlikely to be a critical issue in anyone's decision-making on whether a candidate is trustworthy or not. As for the 'not enforcable' aspect, well, what about all the promises candidates make of the worthy pieces of work they will do when mopped. How many actually fulfil these promises? I've no idea, but they're not enforcable. --Dweller 10:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A mandatory community-based recall process (such as the one used on the German Wikipedia) would be good to have. The voluntary mechanism we have is still better than nothing. It cannot be strictly enforced but presumably people lose reputation by not upholding their word on it, as with anything else. Haukur 10:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is suggested often, the consensus has been over and over that arbcom is doing a fine job handling the desysopings. The whole point of the recall process is that it is voluntary, it shouldn't be enforceable. It is supposed to be mostly meaningless beyond the integrity of the person making the offer. I oppose any mandatory community recall for admins, again, for the 6th time in a year. Most recall attempts I have seen are a small group of editors who are pissed off about something, and they don't have a case for arbcom. Until(1 == 2) 13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus among whom? Among admins afraid to be held more accountable? The reason this is "suggested often" and comes up "over and over", to use your words, is that there is no consensus that ArbCom effects a sufficient, effective and timely check on admins. Other Wikipedias already have more options in place and we would do well to emulate them. Haukur 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase, "it doesn't work in theory. It only works in practice." Sound familiar? If not, I'll know why this is coming up... -- nae'blis 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it ever worked in practice? Until(1 == 2) 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I stongly disagree with a recall procedure. I think arbcom does a good job making the tough decisions. All it would take is one admin who does something an influential person does not like and the torches and pitchforks would come a-charging. It does not mean they did something wrong, just means they pissed of the wrong person. Alot of the work is ugly work, and makes people mad. I think it is important that administrators be able to make tough decisions without fear of a lynchmob asking for there head. If they do go to far, that is what arbcom is for (and they are far from a lynch mob in my opinion). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I respect that Arbcom will remain calm and judge people based on evidence and policy and not charged emotions. Until(1 == 2) 13:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a mischaracterisation of the current process to say that it is pitchfork-y or lynch mob-by. I oppose mandatory recall, but support voluntary. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that it currently is, however saying if it became mandatory, that anybody could request an admins recall, there would be lots of lynch mobs out after admins who do good work, such as the many FU admins, that alot of people dont like teh work they do. If mandatory recalls were instated, I am pretty sure there are plenty of people who sould line up with pitchforks for here. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "has it ever worked in practice?" Several times that I am aware of. (This seems to be a recurring question. Perhaps this should be a faq linked from CAT:AOR??) Mostly it was one or a small group of disgruntled editors, and when the process started, there were not enough folks who would certify under the criteria the admin being recalled specified, and the recall failed. That outcome is a success, because it shows that the process can't be easily subverted by trolls. One time, the recall succeeded, the admin in question asked to be desysopped by the stewards and was. After a period of reflection and recognition of the issues that led to the recall, the admin in question stood for RfA again, and was passed. Some of the supportive comments, IIRC, came from people who had asked for his recall initially. That outcome is a success, because it shows that the process does work to remove admins (with integrity) who are problematic or who need some time to reflect.

Recall is not for all admins. (although I note that the membership has been fluctuating near 100 admins for some time now, that's a small but significant (7%??) minority of the total population...) I oppose making it be something that a prospective admin is asked to commit to in order to gain supports during the RfA, and I oppose making it a mandatory process. We have ArbCom for that... ArbCom is the recourse if an admin says he is recallable, and then goes back on his word later when controversy arises. As stated before, I suspect ArbCom would not look kindly on wiggling out of ones word. I would like to admit bias in this regard, I was one of the people who first worked on the mechanics of the process with User:Aaron Brenneman and who has clerked several recall efforts (and who is willing to do so in future if needed). ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Records of past recall requests. Also linked from CAT:AOR. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The second RfA for the admin that was recalled is here. An example non-recall that probably was a success from this month is here. GRBerry 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, recall works about as well as the people who volunteer for it. A quick look though shows no one (imo) that I would think of recalling, so we have to keep that in mind as well. No need to formalize it. Wizardman 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not as though we have a backlog of admins needing desysoping that arbcom cannot keep up with. Until(1 == 2) 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Its not the like CSD backlog. And its not like they can hide when they do something blatantly 'bad' -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from, oh, covert sockpuppetry, harassing low-profile users, quiet but persistent wheel-warring, inapproriate administrative actions with breaks in between... not all problems are as big as deleting the main page. It's often the problems that start out small that end up snowballing into disasters. We should always look out for each other. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have a point, but all it takes is review of contributions, or a report to WP:ANI for the user's treachery, if you will, to be discovered. But you are right. There are those that hide in the shadows, and we should always be on the lookout. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If this were implemented, how would vindictive and frivolous recalls be avoided? Isn't this a recipe for creating a backlog of admin recalls? Again, what is wrong with the present process, that this "solution" fixes? Banno 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

With the caveat that I oppose mandatory recall so that this is just me talking about how it COULD be done rather than me advocating that it SHOULD be done... Perhaps a page could be taken from the current voluntary process. Making the bar to having a recall certified significant enough that one disgruntled user would not suffice to start the process, (6 users with considerable experience to certify the recall petition, as many current voluntarily recallable admins required is not a bad bar... if you can't find 6 users you're probably a crank and the admin is probably doing their job) and have the petition result in a further process (a re RfA with a 51% requirement, or an RfC, or a remanding to ArbCom, or something, not an immediate desysop, so there's still another check on things even if you can round up 5 other users (or howevermany)... ) would tend to weed out cranks. That has been the experience with (the limited sample set of) the current process. So... I don't see this as a valid argument against mandatory recall. What I see as a valid argument is that it should not be something imposed on admins ex post facto. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• My proposal up above seems like a much better way of doing recall. Like I say, it is difficult for admins to pass RfA twice (I've only seen this happen when someone voluntarily requests reconfirmation, and people are beginning to oppose for that too). -128.12.68.95 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing who's editing from this account, but that comment is set up to be a little misleading. Dekimasuよ! 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether I should reveal who I am when I made that comment. Reworded. -128.12.68.117 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whether ArbCom is an effective check on admins is beginning to be a political question. If a substantial minority of ArbCom sympathizes with a disruptive admin, she can get away with anything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

SNOW closings

I have a few things to say about SNOW closings...

1. I don't think closing them as early as people do is a good idea. RfA can be useful for feedback, even if the RfA is going to fail. Just because it's going to fail doesn't mean it shouldn't run its course, even if not for the full time. It's really important to remember that SNOW isn't policy or a guideline.
2. Secondly, if you're going to do a SNOW closure, please heed the instructions at WP:BCRAT, because all closed RfAs need to be filed in the archives, which people that do SNOW closures don't always do. Please also make sure you update the tally when you're closing it (I forget this all the time).

--Deskana (banana) 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And, if I may add, make the edit which is so edit-summary-cliched as 'Removing 'Voice your opinion' after closure. I saw one RFA that had that link removed several weeks later, and if thats what people are going to do (rmeove that link) then it should be done at closure. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's difficult enough to get bureaucrats to do that. Getting the general populace to do it? Hmm. --Durin 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Still, we must urge them to do it all the same :| ~ Anthøny 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana. I think the such a removal is only really needed if editors start lobbing mostly insults in the oppose line. I really see nothing wrong with letting someone receive 45 or 50 constructive, polite oppose comments. I realize that is an extreme hypothetical, but you get my drift. Often a snow closure is simply a well meaning, but very inexperienced user. So long as people are not being mean in the discussion, it may benefit the editor to let the RFA hang at least a little longer. Hiberniantears 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is obvious that the RFA is not going to succeed, why bring out the knives? Turn it into an opportunity for constructive criticism and encourage the editor. There is also no need to pile on opposes in these cases, either. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

SNOW closures are tricky on timing, I agree. On the one hand, valuable comments may be brought up to help the editor concerned. On the other requests such as this one today are clearly going to fail and in this instance precious little could be learnt that could not be bought up by simply advising the editor on their talk page. In addition we have also seen RFA's from fairly clear sockpuppets / vandals that should not be treated as SNOW but simple vandalism. Trying not to bring editcountitis or recently-joined-itis into this, but sub 300 edits or sub 1 month since account creation (arbitary figures) really is best handled by a firm recomendation to withdraw on the editors user page. Others should run until the candidate withdraws, preferably after gentle advice from editors.(I'm talking about RFA's that clearly will not pass, not contentious ones) Pedro |  Chat  21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I always close my snowballed RfAs properly (as far as the formatting goes), though I have to plead guilty to not properly archiving them. D'oh...
  As for users getting constructive feedback from an RfA, well, but that's not the primary purpose of the RfA system. Obviously, a proper RfA/RfB that is unsuccessful is an opportunity for constructive criticism (hell, even ones that pass can be), but we shouldn't let an RfA for someone with 200 edits stay open just so they can get feedback; that's what editor review is for (that's why {{User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA}} is so handy, if I do say so myself; it gives an editor plenty of alternatives to a spurious RfA). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with EVula regarding new users. In a case like that, the RfA can be SNOW'd when someone feels that there is no more constructive criticism to be said, but I believe people should err on the side of caution, rather than erring on the side of closing (which seems to be practice now). --Deskana (banana) 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

When you say archiving, do you mean adding it to the unsuccessful nominations list? That list is way out of date, and {{rfaf}} adds a cat anyway, so I don't really see the point of doing it twice. Hence I don't add to the list... Giggy _U^CP 00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That page is out of date because people don't update it. Not updating it because it's out of date causes a bit of a catch 22 situation. --Deskana (banana) 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But why do we have the list if we have a cat as well? That's why it isn't updated; because there's an easier and more logical way to do it. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The category doesn't tell us the tallies of each RfA, why it was closed (withdrawn, failed, etc.), or show any subsequent successful RfAs (if someone has made five attempts, the category will only show four pages). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been going through my contribs, and am double-checking every RfA that I've edited (which is most of the recent ones) to see if the failed ones got listed. I'm finding a bunch didn't (and, more surprisingly, I still had about three dozen closed RfAs watchlisted). I'll try to finish up tomorrow night; hopefully the "it's out of date" argument will be much weaker when I'm done. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka RfA 2

Given the interest in Elonka RfA 2 by numerous editors with significant experience, I believe that including an explained reasoning for the closing in Elonka's RfA would be appropriate no matter what the outcome is. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I supported, I have recused myself from closing, however. Andre (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine that will be a very close call, and either way will upset someone. I think all RfA's that arent obvious cases should have a reasoning from the closing crat. It stops all those calls of crats basing it on personal judgement, and shows the actual reasoning. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It stops no such calls since as often as not it shows quite clearly that the bureaucrat is indeed basing it on personal judgment. Or what would you call this: "I believe, based on my interactions with him, that he would make a good sysop, and it would be a mistake not to promote him." [1] Haukur 23:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2/Bureaucrat chat - Can anybody else sense it coming? Giggy _U^CP 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. The promotion rationale for Ryulong was probably a low point in b'crat history and in fact this is precisely why the chat concept has some merit: had Raul made that comment in the chat, someone would have had time to point out to him that it was laughably inappropriate. Of course, in cases such as Elonka's, Gracenotes' and Danny's, any decision is inevitably viewed as catastrophic but making it a collegial decision can minimize the ensuing drama. Or am I being hopelessly optimistic? Pascal.Tesson 00:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The "minimize the ensuing drama" part may be hopelessly optimistic. Nowadays one can create wiki-soap operas at a whim. You just need another editor, a piece of info, and a talk page. —Kurykh 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your comment deeply offensive and will now block you for a week. :-) Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And I will promptly unblock.
(it's not real wiki-drama until there's a wheel war. obviously, you need three editors, not two) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Three people create a ménage à trois. —Kurykh 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And four a cabal. MastCell ^Talk 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Until(1 == 2) 02:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Sometimes I forget. :) MastCell ^Talk 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the part where I indef both of you for "wheel warring" and then protect your talk pages, my talk page, disable your e-mails, and post a slanted but strenuously argued thread on AN/I. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the part where you all get unblocked by discussing it on an unlogged IRC channel. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The percentage is now 71%. This is well in the range where nominations fail. While numbers don't tell the whole story, and the bureaucrats have a discretionary range, that one is 75%-80%.

I don't care what the discretionary range is or what particular process is used to close adminships. But whatever system is used, I think it has to be respected and consistently applied. Very few RfAs passed such a low percentage, and almost all of them (if not all indeed) were dubious (including Danny's RfA). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As of this instant it's not 71% anyway. 139 support + 2 neutral changed to support = 141. 59 opposed + 1 neutral changed to opposed = 60. 4 neutral. 141+60+4=205. 141/205=68.8% support. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that neutrals figure into the denominator. I believe it is '(support)/(support+oppose).' I could be wrong. O rly? Ya rly. the_undertow ^talk 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is correct, then the current count makes: 141+61=202, 141/202=69.8%. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Viridae^Talk 06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrals are disregarded except in close calls. I think this has slid far enough in the past few days that it is no longer a close call, at least with the current numbers and arguments.--Chaser - T 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb here, and say that anything the 'crats consider to be in their discretionary range is by definition a close call. Whether this will end up inside or outside that range I don't predict. GRBerry 14:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not have another Danny incident. I personally supported Elonka and I think she would be an excellent admin. However, the bureaucrats should never promote anyone whose support is below 70% at time of closing. We need to reverse this trend of taking power away from the community and giving it to the bureaucrats. This should be a community decision. Walton^One 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Walton, 99% of RfAs are closed as what you would deem acceptable. Therefore, there can't be a trend. --Deskana (banana) 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

99.9% of people don't die in car accidents. Are you telling me the data set of those that do is too small to see trends? We've had more than 1200 successful RFAs closed and who-knows-how-many unsuccessful. A large percentage being "acceptable" doesn't mean the unacceptable data set isn't large enough to see trends. -- Renesis (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point, probably partially because I didn't word it well. My meaning is that people seem to be afraid of the Danny RfA happening over again. The reason it happened with Danny is because he was an admin before, and as inappropriate as it may have been to promote, I really can't see that happening here. --Deskana (banana) 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You and I probably had different interpretations of Walton's fear. I interpreted it to mean that there seem to have been growing numbers of RFA's closed on a Bureaucrat's "whim" (I would call that a "Ryulong incident", given the closing message on that RFA). I think this point is open for debate. However, I will agree that a specific "Danny" incident is, as you say, unlikely to happen. -- Renesis (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, am I the only one with the feeling that the rule of thumb >80% pass, <75% fail and else think it out has somewhat moved down over the last few months? Even if we set aside Danny's case, I think we've seen an increasing number of RfAs pass close to and under 75% and b'crats have clearly started to show that anything above 70% is still within their discretion range. I hope no one will see this as an attempt to send b'crats a message in favor of Elonka but I feel it would almost be time to update the relevant note in the guide to RfA. I think it's correct to say that a majority of the community has expressed the sentiment that RfA was perhaps a bit too difficult to pass and perhaps this has slowly lowered the bar. In any case, I'd be interested to know what others think on that subject. Pascal.Tesson 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet passed at under 70% and I believe he opposed here. I'd be interested to hear his opinion on the cutoffs. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the interest in Elonka's RfA has just surpassed Danny's RfA... 291,983 bytes in comparison to 288,879 bytes. As said before the argument about percentages, a 'crat chat will probably be needed. --Dark Falls ^talk 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to some of the comments made earlier, I believe that there has been a trend towards giving more power to the bureaucrats. Renesis has correctly interpreted my fear. It's true that 99% of RfAs are not closed in a controversial manner, because 99% of RfAs either clearly succeed or spectacularly fail. But we need to clarify that the bureaucrats' discretionary range does not go any lower than 70%. Anything below 70% is an automatic fail. The only exception would be if a bunch of sockpuppets and/or trolls turned up and made pointless comments (which is why I think we should have a 100-edit threshold for voting on RfAs, as they do on Spanish Wikipedia). Walton^One 14:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic failure? We don't use bots, no such thing is possible. A fail is determined by the first crat that grabs it and calls it that, right? Have we not already had promotions below 70% on the grounds of "Well, I think this candidate will do alright"? I'm fine with crats using lots of discretion, but only if they also use that discretion to remove the bit from those who turned out to be ill suited. So far no crat has ever been willing to do the whole job. Friday (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a matter of willing, lack of ability. Bureaucrats do not have the ability to undo promotions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a bureaucrat wheel war would get ugly. Captain panda 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're only saying that because it's never been done. Read what the stewards will do- last I checked, they will unpromote based on community consensus if an appropriate representative of the community makes the request. Here, we have perfectly suitable representatives, called crats. If the crats asked a steward to undo a promtion, do you really think the stewards would refuse? Crats are trusted members of our community for this purpose. Friday (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You've all somewhat missed the point of what I was trying to say. The only justifiable reason to make someone a sysop is that they enjoy the full confidence of the community, which is the sovereign body on Wikipedia. Bureaucrats are not the Jedi Council. They shouldn't decide who should be promoted and who shouldn't. That decision should be left to the community itself. Walton^One 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine in theory, meaningless in practice. Someone has to judge consensus and actually do the promotion. These people are the crats. There are probably few, if any, editors who enjoy the full confidence of the community. Clearly, there's a line to be drawn somewhere, and we let the crats draw it where they will. Friday (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The RfA has been closed. Looks like the lengthy debate over Wikipedia's schoolyard politics is on its way. — Deckiller 15:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• [ec] The RfA was closed as no consensus, with no crat-chat. That was entirely anticlimactic. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is not with the closure itself, but the childish behavior of both sides at the expense of Elonka's adminship. This is why it is imperative for users to do one of two things: (1) apply for RfA before being extremely active, or (2) submit a plea for Wikipedia to grow up (fat chance). But alas, Elonka does have plenty of room for political improvement (but so do the scores of people acting like children in both camps). — Deckiller 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec x2) Yeah, what a letdown. But good call from the Cecropia: the RfA had slid down quite a bit towards the end and I don't think there'll be any sort of controversy on the closure. As for Deckiller's comment, I agree that the RfA process might be particularly inept in cases such as Elonka and I really think we should add a "forgive and forget" section to WP:AGF. This reminded me a lot of Danny's and Gracenotes' RfAs and we can only hope that such RfAs occur infrequently. Pascal.Tesson 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Perhaps I'm being harsh by generalizing with the word "childish" (as many supports and opposes were solid), but WikiPolitics is something that concerns me greatly. — Deckiller 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • See m:wikipolitics. It isn't inherently a bad thing that we have these wiki-political discussions; on the contrary, it's essential that we carefully scrutinise the actions of those who exercise power. Walton^One 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Indeed, which is why I find it very surprising that Orderinchaos' gross lack of judgment is being shrugged off so easily. Surely such an incident would have derailed his RfA quicker than you can say "meatpuppet" and I'm not sure he can still claim to have the community's trust. Pascal.Tesson 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent activity a prerequisite for commenting on RFAs?

I was a bit surprised to see RFA !votes being followed by comments on the users' recent inactivity. While on a wikibreak, I too once googled "WP:BN" (out of curiosity, withdrawal, boredom, whatever), saw a name I recognized, and rushed to give my support. Luckily this particular RFA saw zero "Opposes" and no one questioned my input. Users could be following en.wikipedia while editing in other corners of the wikifoundation, or while not editing anywhere at all. A name they are familiar with might prompt them to post a comment (whether pro, con, neutral, or general), inspite of recent inactivity. I don't think anyone with experience regarding a particular candidate should get the feeling that their input isn't welcome, regardless of how active they have been in the immediate past. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with tagging !votes for brand new accounts, but I don't recall seeing anyone tag a comment in the way that you mentioned. Examples? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[2] and [3] brought me here. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Three looks compromised, 4 is just a note, which I would personally not have left. I don't believe this is common practice, except for new accounts. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think in some cases, an editor suddenly appearing with no other recent activity might suggest canvassing, though there certainly should be no presumption that canvassing has occurred (and it is questionable in my mind whether it should have any effect even canvassing is shown, as long as it is not the candidate doing the canvassing). -- DS1953 ^talk 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in either case, this is what we pay promote the bureaucrats for. When you think abotu it though, it's 2 votes out of 200, they probably won't make an impact. I see what both sides are saying though. Wizardman 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[4] wouldn't be considered too highly, since the user makes no mention of the sudden return, and because of the vandalism. However, [5] seems legit to me, since the user noted in their support what's going on, etc. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine the claims of canvassing - is telling an on-wiki friend off-wiki that you are going for a RfA canvassing? I know i'd like to tell my wiki friends (when I get some) if they were on wikibreak. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(<--)Eh? Who canvassed? I see nothing along those lines... Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Just to clarify, I'm not worried about the validity of votes or outcome, and I agree, that's why we have b'crats. If there's a canvassing problem, then it should be addressed directly, not by implication. My concern is with the users who have to face these comments on their inactivity. See it this way, someone's RFA may have triggered a user's first edit in weeks or months. While here, such users might take a glance at their watchlist or other pages they're interested in, and before you know it, they could be back contributing to en.wikipedia. Maybe they already felt disenfranchised or disgruntled when they left - they should feel welcome when they choose to return, whether it's article space, an RFA, an MFD, or Jimbo's talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity should not be commented on a user's "vote" (I rarely, if ever, see any sort of comment of that nature left on a support vote). If the voting editor has a less than amicable history with the nominee in question, that should be noted since it would indicate a biased vote. However, if someone opposes, but has not edited Wikipedia in some time, I do not see it appropriate to discount the quality of their opinion simply because of their lack of involvement with editing Wikipedia in the time prior to voting.(sorry if this reads like psychobabble) --Ozgod 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to Administrators and nominees

Administrators are great members of the Wikipedia Community. They are users who are trusted with the tools of an administrator, to maintain the value of Wikipedia and many are grateful for this. However they should not feel that they have authority over other users. Please remember that admins are not the police force of Wikipedia.

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

86.138.208.31 12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.... I dont get this :). Ds.mt 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at contribs... seems to be a drive-by trolling incident. Nothing much. Jimbo's quote is arguably out-of-context nowadays, compared to 2003. – Chacor 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a post from Jimbo from 2003 that's the origin of "Adminship is no big deal" quote. Since this is quoted ad nauseum in RfAs, I don't think its inclusion here adds much. Chaz ^Beckett 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Let's not feed the trolls. Archive it off. Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well at least its here, it was originally posted on the main RfA page before. Ds.mt 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's quote here is hopelessly outdated; indeed, if he were to "go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops" these days, I would probably leave in protest at this gross abuse of power and circumvention of the proper processes. Wikipedia is a much bigger community than it was in 2003, and it is essential that we must be governed by community consensus, not by one individual's whim. Also, adminship is much more of a "big deal" than it was in those days; previously, deletions etc. were determined by a straightforward vote, and admins were therefore not as powerful. In today's Wikipedia, there are only two acceptable circumstances to promote someone to adminship; if they have passed RfA successfully, or if they resigned for non-controversial reasons and want their tools restored. Anything else is an abuse of power, no matter who it comes from. Walton^One 13:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is kinda why Wikipedia:Proposed adminship was rejected. :) --Ds.mt 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think things are working just fine as is. If Jimbo really wants to do that, it is his call, but is has little to do with this talk page. Until(1 == 2) 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he'd do that now - the quote was from 2003. And it isn't "his call". Wikipedia belongs to, and is governed by, the community as a whole. He has no right to override community consensus on matters of admin promotion, which is solely the prerogative of the community. Walton^One 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the blanking of this thread by Deskana, I think that's a bad idea, especially coming from a bureaucrat. Yes, on Wikipedia we can edit things (big difference compared to mailing lists), but that does not mean we should be quick to edit and wipe out discussions from talk pages. Especially that this discussion has its point. Let it get archived in due time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's already been discussed on Deskana's talk page. Walton^One 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you all seem to have misunderstood me. I am not suggesting that the current method for selecting administrators should be changed as it is quite good and conforms with establishing consensus. I was only trying to make a point that many users these days, thrive for adminship simply for the power and authority, while admins should only be standard users of the community with a few extra tools for maintenance. If I was disrupting wikipedia or offendign anyone by starting this discussion, then I do apologise. I do admit that the way I started the discussion was a bit inappropriate and I apologies for this. I also apologise for the change in ip address as it is a dynamic one.81.158.202.40 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO anyone attaining adminship for the "power and authority" is going to be deeply disapointed when they realise it's just some extra buttons after all! (with due respect to all admins and candidates) I'm sorry 81.158.202.40 but I can't see how you are furthering the goals of wikipedia with your comments. They see to just be a vague "attack" at recent succesful (and indeed unsuccesful) admin candidates which is not really pleasent. Pedro |  Chat  15:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not attacking recently successful candidates. I am happy for them. Admins do a great job on wikipedia and they are necessarry. But I am making a point of the feelings of authority which develops due to the current ways of wikipedia. As I said before I do not feel that the way admins are selected should be changed. I am simply saying that they should be standard, respected and trusted users with admin tools. And this is stated on Wikipedia:Administrators. If you want me to back off then Ill do so as its clear that alot of people disagree with me and agree that Im just a bug trying to destroy the Wikipedia Community.81.158.200.32 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In fairness that response was reasoned discource and my thanks. Can I ask that perhaps you register an account? I am now going off line so my lack of further participation is not me being ignorant but being away from my laptop. Best. Pedro |  Chat  15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka closed as no consensus

Elonka's RfA has not reached consensus. There has been a lot of discussion in this candidacy and a lot of rancor, as well. As I read it, there is much room for the candidate to improve her standing in the community in order to approach a future RfA. -- Cecropia 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But it also shows once again that these RfA camps are getting ridiculous. Sometimes I think strict criteria (like FAC) would help matters somewhat; it would give the B-crats an easier job to separate the grudge or ridiculous opposes (and perhaps even certain supports?). Then again, some may feel it would ruin the "spirit" of RfA. — Deckiller 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Strict criteria are an interesting idea. For example, if we were to stipulate 2000 edits (1000 in mainspace) and 6 months' service as the fixed experience criteria, it would actually reduce editcountitis; users would no longer justifiably be able to oppose anyone who met those criteria on the basis of inexperience. It would also reduce confusion for newbies who discover RfA and put in a hyper-premature request (I made this mistake myself back in October 2006). We could add a list of basic criteria to the top of the RfA page, and state that candidates who did not meet these criteria would not be accepted and would be de-listed. (However, obviously, this would have been irrelevant in the Elonka case.) Walton^One 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On another point, I congratulate Cecropia on an excellent and correct closure. Even though I strongly supported Elonka, the outcome of the RfA was clearly No consensus. Having an elitist "crat chat", where a small group makes a decision and other users are excluded, is never a good idea. Walton^One 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Commons has a set minimum requirements for admin candidates (200 edits and 2 months of active participation), and it seems to be working out fairly well. --Boricuaeddie 16:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the conominators I agree the 'crats got this one right. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka protected for six hours

I've temporarily protected Elonka as several editors are still adding to the comments and have had to be reverted. The protection is just to give everyone a chance to simmer down. We need the page to stand as closed for archive purposes, as usual. -- Cecropia 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Diez2 extended

As closing approached, the consensus on this candidacy was truly ambiguous with thin interest and discussion. I ask the community to please do a little more dog work and vet this nomination to produce a clearer expression of community sentiment. Thank you, Cecropia 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets talk about edit counts, time served, and litmus tests in general

Seeing some of the rancor surrounding the Elonka discussions, and then reading Walton’s [6]comment, I really got to thinking on what matters in this process.

I think time in the project is more important than edit count, as it will reveal a far larger sample of an editor's personality patterns, and energy to remain involved than simply making 10,000 edits over a two week period (although that tells me an editor is spending way too much time couped up in front of one website for me to trust them with any kind of rational thinking). Now, in the case of the Elonka debate, you see how time + edit count can really hurt you if you have a well established set of personality traits (conversely, it can also really help you, depending on the traits in question). Should an editor with thousands of edits over a period of years be held accountable for an outburst long ago? Again, this probably depends on the nature of the outburst, and whether there was ever an attempt at remorse or reconcilliation… but I digress.

I honestly think a six month + 500 edits is a viable bar for sysops to get over in order to have an RfA. That said, I think people can probably come up with a set of equally viable exceptions to this rule, and thus I believe that after a little discussion, you could have a rule of “time+edits (with exception to these instances)”. My reasoning for this is as follows:

• Time: Time allows you to establish a pattern which gives the community the chance to know you. Since most of us will never deal face to face, seeing how you edit over time is really the only way to assess your ability to handle the tools responsibly. Six months is a reasonably long period for an electronic community, and is probably a very long time when considering how dynamic Wikipedia is. Over a six month period, an editor will be able to demonstrate any number of telling patterns which will inform you as to whether or not said editor would make a fine admin. It gives an editor the opportunity to poke around, make mistakes, and demonstrate if they can learn/receive polite and impolite tips from others in the community. Now, are there editors ready and willing inside of six months? Yes, criteria for supporting somone inside that time frame can easily be established, and cited upfront in an RfA.

• Editcount: Edit count can tell you a lot about an editor, but it does not give any indication whatsoever on the quality of the individual edits. 500 edits, an entirely arbitrary number which I just pulled out of thin air, gives you some semblace of what an editor is all about. 500 probably seems pithy to most of us, but when you really give it some thought, 500 thoughtful, hefty, and diverse edits are of far more value to this project than 50,000 edits tagging for speedy deletes. If I were to really take a stand on edit counts, I would actually suggest an ‘’’editcount maximum’’’ within a timeframe, simply out of concern for an editor’s health. Returning to my point, with a view of at least 500 edits, you will be able to tell where someone’s interests lie, and whether or not they have a need for any kind of admin tools.

Well, I have not really delved into the “other litmus tests” idea, but if anyone can think of something… bring it up! Hiberniantears 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)