User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Consensus

BL (Archive 13)

BL is a calm, reasonable user (since 2002) diligently working on a contentious set of articles. 172 09:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wow. It's extremely flattering to be nominated admin. Thanks for the wikilove hugs all around. Yeah I do still want to become a sysop. But I've long since realised that I'm not one to win any popularity contents. I won't let that, or the baseless accusations made agaisnt me above (that wont be dignified with a response), bother me or effect my enjoyment of Wikipedia. BL 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Support votes:

Support (implicit). BTW, why wasn't I included in the vote tally until now? It was my nomination! 172
Support. Uncle Ed 14:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support. Viajero 14:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support. Anyone who can stay calm while working on the most inflammatory articles in Wikipedia deserves to be a sysop. --No-One Jones 17:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support. Stewart Adcock 00:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support. Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
Tough call. I don't think a persons opinions should be held against him, like they were the last time round, so I would lean towards supporting, ~~but count me as noncommittal for the time being.~~ -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) After consideration, I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments presented against his gaining adminship. Mark me as a support. It would be a boon to have him promoted. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:21, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Very active and Started a number of valuable articles. May05 17:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Support Secretlondon 17:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Support ugen64 03:49, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Support Wenteng 09:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Based on the opposition BL received the last time he was on this page, I'd like to know whether his reasons for wanting to be a sysop have changed before I vote. See also [1]. Angela . 16:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
(removing my response to Angela in light of BL's newer comments)

Oppose votes:

Oppose. Maximus Rex 21:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Angela doesn't trust BL, so i don't trust BL. Alexandros 22:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I think recruiting a radical "inclusionist" is a bad idea. He votes "keep" even on trash that could qualify for instant deletion. --Jia ng 00:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Wants to put the project at risk by promoting wholesale copyright infringement [2]. Perhaps he should fork, as he suggested in the post. --Michael Snow 16:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, for same same reasons as Michael Snow. -- Seth Ilys 22:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Hasn't met an article, no matter how ridiculous, that he thinks shouldn't be kept. RickK 05:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. He takes WP for a joke. Hahaha. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. --Imran 14:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. --mav
Oppose. silsor 23:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 10 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral. Ends 09:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

BL did win by a margin of 11 to 10. Perhaps Ed just failed to see that the tally above had not been updated when the time limit expired. This mistake should be corrected right away. 172 22:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dont agree with your vote counting. I personally either count neutral votes as both support and oppose, or I dont count them at all. It's not fair to count a neutral vote as only support or only oppose. Optim 18:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think you have to win by more than one to become an admin. Perl 22:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now that we have more users granting sysops, a clear criteria of what constitutes a consensus must be spelled out. A simple majority of 1 vote is definately not a consensus though. --Jia ng 01:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are we sure? Has there ever been a case in the past when someone had won the vote on this meta page, but failed to attain admin status? This isn't a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know the answer. 172 02:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We should use the same criteria here as for Votes for Deletion. There have been many cases where things listed on VfD have had a large majority for deletion, but not a large enough "consensus". I'd be really puzzled if someone got adminship with a less than ringing consensus. RickK 00:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be troublesome, but I'm ignorant of the processes involved here. Thus, I'm still wondering if we have a precedent case along these lines on votes for admin. If there is no precedent, this case points out the need to draft clearer guidelines. 172 01:03, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Consensus (Archive 13)

Has any definition of the consensus required been set out? Do we want to set one out? How about something like "at least 2/3rds majority, with voting by logged in users with at least 100 edits/1 month of being here"? Does that sound too stringent, or not stringent enough? Other opinions, options? -- Infrogmation 01:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This could get ugly. How about keeping it quiet here and asking for Jimbo's intervention? Also, if the BL matter is unprecedented, perhaps we should ask Jimbo to determine whether or not he becomes an admin. 172 01:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Several times, I've heard "consensus" defined as 80% of those voting →Raul654 01:46, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

But on this page? I might be wrong, but I think that I've seen admins slide by with less than 80%. 172 01:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't want this to be taken as any kind of dig on BL, but 172, I think we can agree that anything below a 2/3 majority (66.66% of those voting) really can't be taken as a "consensus" by any meaning of the word. If it was majority, it would say "majority", I think. If someone got a 2/3 majority....well, there we would be stumped, and I think we do need to set a guideline for that kind of instance. I just think we all do need to agree that, whatever consensus is, we are agreed that it is not receiving 11 supports to 10 opposes. Jwrosenzweig 03:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be at least 80%. Admins need to be trusted, and there is a problem if 20% of those voting do not trust a person. Angela . 03:51, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

80% is way too high. Keep in mind the effect that this criterion would have on Wiki's diversity. Moreover, let's keep the question of admin status in perspective. Sysop powers can be reversed in seconds. The miniscule risk of a rogue admin (such as that user who went nuts and started a spree of vandalism) does not outweigh the risk of turning the community of admins into a homogenized mix of Wiki automatons. After all, any action by an admin can be undone right away!

On another note, perhaps this page already has an inherent tendency to over-represent opposition. Keep in mind that conflict makes more noise around here than cooperation; when there's agreement, users will simply continue to add content to articles and communicate fleetingly. Users who disagree on what makes a proper encyclopedia article, or specific coverage issues, also form biases against each other. Baring other factors, it's clear that potential opposition voters are far more likely to be vocal about a candidacy than potential "yes" voters.

Before such an extreme measure is adopted, Jimbo's guidance is necessary. Regarding BL, if we cannot find a precedent, Jimbo's ought to decide whether or not he is granted admin status. It would be unfair - to put it mildly - to hold BL up to a post facto criteria drawn up as a result to his own candidacy. A precedent is needed so as to avoid charges of discrimination and unfairness. 172 04:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172, all I can say is that, with all due respect, we have been remarkably efficient in promoting huge numbers of admins, and we turn down a fairly small percentage of serious applicants. Furthermore, anyone who has spent time here could assure you that this site has always been clear that getting 51% of the vote is nowhere near enough to achieve consensus: this isn't an attempt to enforce post facto criteria on BL. It's just the way this page operates. You're free to ask Jimbo, of course, but I think a review of this page's history would establish the kind of support you need here, and that more than 3/4 of nominations here get that level of near-unanimous support. Jwrosenzweig 05:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm just asking for a precedent. Find one and I'll shut up. Irrespective of BL, I'll ask Jimbo and the mailing list about this draconian 80% threshold. Given that Jimbo's the most ardent defender of Wiki's diversity, I doubt that he'd support any limit greater than 2/3. 172 05:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Best I can find in the last month or so is that Metasquares (who [3] was supported by 7, opposed by 7 when the tally ended) was not promoted, and no one raised any fuss at all. Given that 50% wasn't close enough for someone to scream to keep the polls open, I think it's fair to say that 54% isn't enough to promote. I could look back further, though, if this one isn't good enough. And certainly, talk it over with Jimmy! I'd be interested in what he had to say. Jwrosenzweig 05:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, crud I miscounted someone twice (I wish people wouldn't post twice) so Metasquares lost 6 to 7. I'll look again. Jwrosenzweig 05:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here, finally! User:mydogategodshat was refused here [4] even though ahead 15 to 8, by my count, and there was no disagreement here. Case finally closed, I think. :-) I should note that I was one of mydog's supporters, and I agreed that consensus was not reached, though not missed by much. Jwrosenzweig 05:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well that's it for BL. (I bet the name didn't help mydog's campaign either.) But I still have misgivings about any minimum higher than 2/3. 172 06:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The place consensus works best in Wikipedia is in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. An article becomes an feature article as long as there are no objections. Objections are mashed out, changes are made, and then a true consensus has been had. This is easy with an article. Impossible to do with people. I can't work with you to make changes to an admin candidate's personality. alas. Still, we should set the bar high. 75%+ is a very reasonable place to set the bar. Kingturtle 05:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that winning by one vote should count as winning the vote, and the user should become an admin. BL should be made an admin based on the vote. (I don't really have a personal feeling over the matter) Perl 15:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good. Then let's go back to all of the VfD votes and delete every page listed there that got more delete votes than keep votes. RickK 03:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RickK, your comment is ridiculous. Anthony DiPierro 03:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think RickK just wanted to show it is ridiculous to count a 1 vote majority as a consensus. An admin should be someone nearly everyone agrees about to be able to edit neutrally and to have enough experience and skills. A significant number of opposing votes should be enough to block adminship. Get-back-world-respect 21:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poll #3 (Archive 16)

What is your comfort level on what constitutes consensus?

50% + 1
60%
two-thirds
70%
75%
80%
85%
90% or more

How much should the bureaucrat's knowledge of who the voters are (new, very trusted, a crank or ideologue, an admin, another bureaucrat) modify his/her use of the raw numbers?

A lot
A little
Not at all

How much should the bureaucrat's reading of the quality of the voter's arguments (and perhaps rebuttals) for or against influence his/her use of the raw numbers?

A lot
A little
Not at all

Responses

(5,2,1) Cecropia 21:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) -- I changed my opinion on "knowledge of voters" because I agree it's badly worded--also, I think 80% is a little high because it means that one negative voter cancels out four positive ones.
(2,1,1) — Jor (Talk) 21:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(6,3,2) Sam Spade 21:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(6,3,3) Wik 21:21, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
(2,1,1) Nico 21:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(6,2,2) And in the second case, I chose 2 because "crank, ideologue" should not be a good reason, but "probable sockpuppet with no evidence" is. moink 21:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(6,2,3) Dori | Talk 23:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
(6,2,2) Agreeing with moink about the second case -- the "who the voters are" section includes legitimate and illegitimate reasons for discounting votes. Jwrosenzweig 23:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(6,2,2) They shouldn't be doing "a lot" of judgement, but they need to use some. →Raul654 23:53, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
(6,2,1) If objections aren't founded, that should make a big difference. If objections (or support) seem to all be from "controversial" users or from new users, that should also be taken into account somewhat. Isomorphic 00:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(x,2,2) There is no fixed number for consensus. It depends on the type and strength of the objections. The legitimacy and experience of "voters" is a factor, as is strength of feeling and "quality" of argument. But the whole process is fluid, and that's why the exercise of good judgment is so important. --Michael Snow 01:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(5,2,2) Stewart Adcock 01:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(8,1 [discounting sock puppets],1 [giving time and weight to votes after objections have been raised and if the community has accepted the objectionor not]) Note: the weightings in this response are only for deciding that the community has or hasn't reached consensus - one unaddressed example of great misuse of capability is enough to say no, absent community support following that objection, IMO. Jamesday 02:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(6,3,3) Bureaucrats are custodians, not referees. Kingturtle 03:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(0,1,1) Mkweise Vote counts are meaningless and only encourage sockpuppetry. What's important is that at least one person whom you trust trusts the candidate, and that there are no serious unresolved concerns (vetos).
(8,3,3) Although I'm hesitant about raising the bar while allowing current admins to be grandfathered in. anthony (see warning) 22:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(5,2,3) For example, I respect Kingturtle, but think his requirements for adminship are too high. Nevertheless, it's a valid argument and he's a valuable user. My opinion of the "validity" of his argument (should I be a bureaucrat) shouldn't matter. Meelar 22:24, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(5,2,3) BCorr|Брайен 22:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
(6,3,1) Mikez 16:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(6,1,2) Tεx τ urε 16:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - although I was tempted to put (π,-1,B)
(6,2,2) While I agre with Michael Snow about # for consensus, the larger a group gets, the less likely true consensus is. Larger groups need some given but flexible number to work towards. (A vote of no means to block consensus, while a vote of neutral is to not block consensus but register assent without agreement. One no vote should block consensus. That would never work here. Pick a number.) - UtherSRG
(6,2,2) Dissident 17:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(x,1,2) Consensus is all about judgement. ✏ Sverdrup 19:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(6, 1 2) Tannin 15:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Promoting users despite lack of consensus (Archive 17)

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions

Recently Angela promoted Fennec, Ed Poor promoted Cecropia, and Cimon Avaro promoted Zero0000 to adminship even though none of them had 80% support, which is the threshold most people could agree on. Sysops are not entitled to make such arbitrary decisions as to define what a consensus is. There needs to be a fixed threshold, and if someone falls slightly short of it, then we have to say, too bad, but a near miss is still a miss. --Wik 00:52, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think this a policy issue, and should be discussed on wikipedia talk:requests for adminship rather than something which requires a review of admin actions. That talk page demonstrates that there is clearly no agreement on whether 80% is required, and when RfA candidates have narrowly missed 80%, no one has taken the decision to remove them from the page. It is not only bureaucrats who can make the decision to remove someone. If you think there is consensus on consensus meaning 80%, then you should remove those people before they are made sysops. I expect you might get reverted though. Angela . 08:10, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Angela, I can't agree with that. If only Bureaucrats have the power of promotion, then only Bureaucrats should have the power to decide (outside of firm guidelines) that a close nomination should be removed. Admins have to make judgment calls all the time on issues like consensus on deletion, and those can be very contentious. To put it another way, the buck has to stop somewhere. Cecropia 15:53, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Non-sysops also have the ability to make decisions regarding pages listed on VfD. The only difference is that admins can delete pages. Any user can decide the consensus was to keep a page and remove it from VfD as long as they do so within the confines of the deletion policy. As explained at Wikipedia:Maintenance tasks, the idea that only sysops can deal with VfD is a common misconception.

I feel non-bureaucrats ought to be dealing with RfA. Before bureaucrats existed, Tim Starling was usually the developer who promoted sysops, but he very rarely removed anyone from the page who was not going to become an admin. That was left to whoever wanted to maintain the page. I see no reason for that to change now. Angela . 21:58, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the poll on which percentage should be required (see archive 16) currently shows only 61% of people wanting consensus to mean 80% or more. Therefore, if you believe consensus is 80%, this poll has no consensus. Angela . 08:35, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Summary of the poll as of 23 April:
No fixed percentage (3) Mkweise, Michael Snow, Sverdrup
60% (2) Jor, Nico
75% (4) Cecropia, Stewart Adcock, Meelar, BCorr
80% (12) Sam Spade, Wik, moink, Dori, Jwrosenzweig, Raul, Isomorphic, Kingturtle, Mikez, Texture, UtherSRG, Dissident
90%+ (2) Jamesday, anthony

Let's not get silly. We have no consensus for "80%" but we have even less of a consensus, not even a majority, for any other number or other solution. But we need to have some procedure here, therefore we need to choose the one that comes closest to having a consensus. There is certainly less than 61% support for the current policy "just let sysops do what they want". So the 80% threshold should be definitive. And that's why I think you, Ed, and Cimon have acted incorrectly. Which is why I raised the matter on this page. It is also pointless to tell me I can remove those nominations when any bureaucrat can revert me and promote the user anyway. --Wik 14:59, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps 75% would be a better option, considering 75% of those in the poll support 75% or more. Angela . 15:13, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

That's a strange logic. You might as well say 0% would be a better option, considering 100% of those in the poll support 0% or more. The fact is that only 9 people in the poll consider 75% enough, but 14 don't. --Wik 15:22, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but you still don't address the fact that whenever the vote has been between 75% and 80%, no one has removed the candidate from RfA. This suggests that even though more people support 80%, they don't support it strongly enough to actually do anything about it. This leads me to think more people would agree on 75%. Anyway, there is currently no such policy that says 80% is required, so the people you have listed here do not need their actions reviewed as they have not broken any policy. If you want 80% to be the policy, I suggest you add that to the page and then start enforcing it rather than complaining before the policy exists. Angela . 15:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I just added it and was reverted. In any case, the vote on this page seems sufficient to me to establish the policy. I don't think the fact that no one has removed the candidates is relevant; I know I didn't remove them because I would just have been reverted by a bureaucrat. There may be a different opinion among bureaucrats than among the users in general, but they have no special authority to define policy, and the view of the users in general has been expressed in the poll. --Wik 16:07, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you were reverted considering only 61% of people agree with you. I'm not suggesting bureaucrats have any "authority to define policy"; I'm just saying that a policy of 80% is not something that is agreed on by a highly significant number of those voting. If I were going to vote, I would actually agree with you that, in most cases, it should be 80%, but I'm not going to vote because I feel that trying to enforce a strict numerical ruling is going to cause additional sockpuppet problems. As I explained before, I maintain my promotion of Fennec was justified. Angela . 16:31, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Because my suggestion got archived I'll suggest it again: A bureaucrat should promote a user if (s)he gets at least 80% of all the voters or 75% of both all the voters as well as all the voting sysops separately unless there were any irregularities like suspicious users voting. In that case it becomes a judgement call (like now). -- Dissident (Talk) 16:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, sysops should not have a greater say in such matters. --Wik 16:07, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, they do -- Should bureaucrats be making judgement calls when promoting people to adminship? IE - should they take into account who the new users are and give their votes less weight (vote "yes")? Or, should they simply look for consensus (approximately 75%+) when promoting (vote "no") - 15 people thought so, and only 6 opposed. So it would seem that most people think that they are allowed to use their good judgement when deciding whether or not to promote someone. →Raul654 16:13, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I only see 5 opposed there, Raul654. You crossed yourself out when you switched to yes, but didn't remove yourself from the no count. --Michael Snow 16:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching me. →Raul654 16:21, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't interpret the votes for "bureaucrats should apply their own judgement" as meaning "votes by sysops should be weighted more heavily than votes by non-sysops." I, for instance, support the first statement and not the second. I thought they should weight very new users who may be sockpuppets or unfamiliar with our policies more lightly, but I don't think my vote is more valid than Anthony's or Perl's or Wik's, all people who have been here longer than me, or even BKonrad, who has been here less long than me, but is obviously familiar with our procedures. moink 17:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We're not talking about "new users" here. I don't think there was a concern about that. The support was below 80% among established users. And when you're quoting polls you will surely recognize the validity of the "80%" poll. So why did you revert my edit to that effect? --Wik 16:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I reverted you because I agree with Angela's position - not everyone agrees that 80% is the magic number (hell, I can't even remember whether I voted for 75% or 80%), and I don't think we should be quoting it as if it were. Further, I think giving hard statistics like that only encourages sock-puppetry, which has been a problem as of late. →Raul654 16:50, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Even less people agree with the existing policy. If you think "everyone" has to agree with a policy, then you can blank just about any policy page. In cases where there has to be a policy one way or the other, but there is no strong consensus for either, a simple majority obviously must be sufficient. Also, sockpuppets are irrelevant to this - they should of course be discounted. But in the case of Zero0000, for example, there were no sockpuppet suspects - it was clearly less than 80% support among fully qualified voters. --Wik 16:56, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "validity", Wik, but I believe that quite a few people disagree with allowing a threshold on requests for adminship if it is set at 80%. And by quite a few, I mean that it may well exceed 20%. --Michael Snow 16:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even more people disagree with any alternative. People have voted that they want a threshold, and then they voted that they want it to be 80%. So why is this not official policy? If you're saying there's no consensus for it, then remember there's even less of a consensus for the current de facto policy applied by Angela, Ed, and Cimon. --Wik 16:46, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Where's the vote that says we want a threshold? --Michael Snow 16:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the same vote Angela quoted above. Only 3 users said there should be no fixed percentage. --Wik 17:02, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

The questions in that poll were:

Should there be a minimum number of edits / time someone has been here (or both) before their votes count?
Should bureaucrats be making judgement calls when promoting people to adminship? IE - should they take into account who the new users are and give their votes less weight (vote "yes")? Or, should they simply look for consensus (approximately 75%+) when promoting (vote "no")?
What is your comfort level on what constitutes consensus?

The only one of those that could conceivably indicate that people voted for a threshold is the no option from Poll #2, and as already pointed out, the vote there was 15 yes, 5 no. You can't read Poll #3 as saying that people wanted a threshold; those are simply opinions about where the threshold might be if we used one. --Michael Snow 17:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, as I said before the poll #2 was only about whether sysops could give less weight to the votes of new users. It goes without saying that all other users' votes carry the same weight. And people who don't want a threshold could have voted accordingly in poll #3 - only three did. --Wik 17:40, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how Poll #3, as the question was phrased, supports at all the notion that people were voting to impose a threshold. If that's what the poll was about, then the question was so incredibly misleading that I don't think the results are "valid", as you have been arguing. --Michael Snow 17:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, then let's have another poll. --Wik 18:01, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

The day that Wikipedia endorses voting as a decision-making tool is the day I quit Wikipedia. Our goal is to make a free, open, accurate and neutral encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary.

We only have conducted polls to facilitate the decision-making process, not to bind us with a tyranny of numbers.

For example, suppose if they did a quickpoll on some unpopular user (even one who seems like a "pest" to me) and the outcome was to ban them -- not for violating any rule but just because they simply got tired of dealing with them. What if that unpopular user was you? --Uncle Ed 17:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Voting is inevitable where one policy or the other has to be chosen, yet there is no consensus for either. --Wik 17:40, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Minumum number of supporters? (Archive 19)

Current policy seems to be to grant adminship on the basis of the ratio of supporters to opposers. What if, say, a candidate had 2 supporters and no opposers? Would that be good enough? My personal opinion is that a candidate should have a minimum of 10 supporters. If a nomination goes through with less support than that, I believe this to be a sign that the nomination has not received enough attention, and it should stay on Requests for Adminship until the minimum is met. If you've never heard of these users before, don't just ignore them and abstain. Go explore their talk page, look up a few of their contributions. You don't need to be someone's friend or diehard fan in order to support their nomination: you just need to satisfy yourself that the person is reliable. "No big deal", remember? On the other hand, I think there is such a thing as too much support. I'm worried about these votes becoming popularity contests. I've decided that I'm not going to add my name to long lists of supporters. I don't need to voice my support for a candidate who's a clear shoo-in anyway, and doesn't need more support. From now on, I plan to vote only when:

My vote can make a difference
I have an opinion to express in an actual debate regarding a candidate
I have a comment or some new information to contribute
The nomination has not aroused enough comment, in my opinion.

Woggly 09:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your plans seem very sensible. As of the minimum number of supporters, it is probably best not to prescribe a hard number but rather say that the a bureaucrat should feel free to leave a note saying they are extending the vote for a day or two if the numbers seem a bit thin. Pcb21| Pete 10:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe that many voters silently follow the guidelines you have just enumerated. I have never seen a vote here draw fewer than 8 or 10 votes in the history of the page, and since there are a number of users who scrutinize all nominations closely, I doubt that approval with only a handful of votes is a practical problem. UninvitedCompany 18:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's no need to fix something that isn't broken. Nominations are always voted on by enough people to make it clear. Nominations of well-known people do get more attention than nominations of less-known people, but I don't see why that's a problem either. Isomorphic 20:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily a problem. However, I'm aware that in the past people have become admin with as few as four votes. I'm not saying that I feel these people have not been good admins, but it does sort of strain the meaning of "consensus" now that we've put so much emphasis on numbers. When a person attracts very few votes while others at the same time are getting dozens, I wonder why those particular users attract so little attention--when we know that a lot of people are looking at the page but so many don't want to look into that user to consider voting one way or the other. This isn't a high priority for me, but I wouldn't be upset if a minimum of 10 positive votes or so were agreed upon as a minimum. If the ten votes were not achieved in a week, we could extend for a day to see if anyone wanted to "tip the balance" to demonstrate better consensus. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As a four-vote admin myself (admittedly, that was almost a year ago, and RFA was a much quieter place then), I think a threshold would be wise, but a looser one, perhaps, than suggested above. I would encourage bureaucrats (full disclosure -- I am one) to "seriously consider" extending a vote which has, say 6-9 supports unless the bureaucrat can see that among those support votes are several long-time trusted contributors, and that a vote only is forced to extend with less than 6. If, say, a user with a lot of contributions on more obscure or less well-traveled topics had the support of Angela, mav, Mkmcconn, Kingturtle, Wesley, Ed Poor, and a couple of others (to select a few names from the list of people I know have been here a bit longer than me), and no opposition, I'd be in favor of promoting, and to heck with a 10 person minimum. If I recognize one or none of the 7 names I see, it makes me more suspicious of sock puppets or groups of friends conspiring, which is about the only reason I can think of to set a minimum number of supports. Are we comfortable with a softer rule like this? Or does it reinforce the idea of a cabal too much? I don't think so, but then I've always thought the cabal was a pretty stupid conjecture, and I certainly don't feel like a part of one. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. When I ran for Bureaucrat I said I wouldn't let admin nominations run for many extra days because a bureaucrat wouldn't make a decision on a close vote. However, having said that I would prefer we have understandings in place to make it necessary for bureaucrats to have to make these close decisions as little as possible. If sockpuppets are suspected to be involved, I would think someone would bring that up and that in itself would generate interest in the nomination. So without a "hard" minimum, what would you say would be a reasonable "soft" minimum that a bureaucrat could simply promote without having to get out the analysis pad? -- Cecropia | Talk 23:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

10 seems reasonable to me -- if there are 10 supporters and no one's raised any objections or concerns, I can't think of a good reason to be otherwise suspicious. I'd honestly argue for a bit fewer, but I don't see any need in fighting for a number that would cause fighting. 10 seems to have a consensus here, and so I think there's no good reason to push lower to a number that might be more controversial to others (after all, I'm a bit biased, being a 4 vote admin myself :-). Certainly, as UC noted above, few nominations, if any, have that little traffic these days. Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In an odd kind of way a 10/0/0 vote might be more indicative of a useful person to have as admin than a 40/0/0 one (so long as ability to the job and "attendance" requirements are met). The person with 40 votes is clearly known to the mainstream where we have a lot of strengths. A 10/0/0 shows the person is widely respected but swims in different pools - useful for spreading admin coverage. (I should put out that Snowspinner who has about 40 votes will regardless make a fabulous admin, I was talking about the general case) Pcb21| Pete 08:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Given the volume of participation on this page, I agree with those who say no minimum threshold is necessary. --Michael Snow 18:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

recently created admins page shows that every admin created in last 2 months had at least 12 yes votes. Andris 09:20, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

"80% rule" (Archive 22)

I removed the specific "80%" threshold given in the Rules section, and re-worded the first couple sentences for grammar. It is not appropriate because, like any other page, VfA requests are to work toward consensus. Bureaucrats already know this, and the new wording sets a much better tone. -- Netoholic @ 23:17, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

I disagree since it's a practical guideline for those who are nominated or just interested in the working of this process. I'm changing it back until we have some consensus on this, OK? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That stat may be informative, as you think it is, if it were based on some real data. As it is, it's just a number pulled out of the air, and shatters any concept that adminship is a consensus-drived process. If more people understood that it is less to do with the precise ratio of votes, and more to do with moving the discussion towards community agreement, I think there would be a lot less "bad blood" in the voting process. -- Netoholic @ 23:23, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

Netoholic, the 80% figure is the only figure that we have consensus on as being a reasonable measure of consensus. :-) It's been discussed on this talk page before -- it may well be worth discussnig again, but I think it's worth saying that we've argued over this before, and 80% was accepted as a reasonable standard. I think the reason we've had the number displayed is because without it people are too intimidated (many seem to think consensus is unanimity when they arrive here). 80% helps give a face to the general notion that we want most of the community on board before a decision is final, but if a few dissent they can't spoil things. I believe that, as a bureaucrat, if an admin candidate gets at least 80% support with no suspected sockpuppets, I would be remiss in not promoting them, even if I myself was one of the "oppose" votes. Otherwise the system breaks down. You're free to disagree, but please know that this has been discussed in the past, and 80% was the lowest number we could get a reasonable consensus in support of. If we leave it as nothing but "consensus" without offering any number as a general idea of its meaning, I think we leave the door open for promotion of admins who have ~65% support, and I don't think that's right. Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Netoholic has a fair point. If you look at the current listings, there seems to be a clear consensus support for five out of the six, and the 80% rule seems generally pointless. In the sixth case, Sam Spade, even if enough users did now vote in support to constitute 80% of the total voters, the number and strength of objections so far suggest that employing the 80% guideline and making Sam Spade an admin would be divisive and hard to justify. 172.185.182.26 23:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I respect that position, although I partially disagree with it. If 120+ support votes appeared from established (i.e., not new) users who were clearly not sockpuppets, I don't know how on earth I could refuse to promote someone. On the other hand, it is worth considering the changes in scale. I remember when RFAs attracted an average of 10-15 votes -- at that point, 20% objections meant 2-3 people. It was easy to see that could be personality conflict or a few minor scuffle on the part of the nominee. Given, however, RFAs that attract 60-70 votes, it is well worth considering whether 80% is unwise -- if 12-14 people object, does that indicate a too-substantial body of criticism to be ignored? Perhaps it does. I'm open to talking about this, as I said before. But I think, as this site grows, partisanship is likely to increase as a factor -- the politically unpopular will be easy targets in RFAs. If 20 hardcore right wingers or left wingers decide to reject a given candidate based purely on ideology (though they offer some vague public objections like "POV" and "displays bias on userpage") and refuse to budge from their position, despite a conversation in the RFA that attempts to build consensus, are we willing to let them hold this site hostage? Or is it better to say that, as Jimmy often comments, adminship should be "no big deal"? This is a huge question, and not one we can settle in a day or even a week. But it's worth talking about. Jwrosenzweig 00:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if we're not losing sight in this discussion that not so long ago bean-counting was discouraged in determining adminship, and many objected to showing toctallies at all. Having said that, humans (male humans especially) are numbered-oriented critters, and we have hashed out that the basic sentiment is that many feel that 75% is a minimum for promotion and 80% satisfies almost everyone. We also positively established that bureaucrats should use their discretion, and closely examine contentious votes, to determine consensus, because consensus is the requirement, not a simple number. All notwithstanding, I support mention of the 75%-80% non-rule simply because newer editors (and not a few older ones) frequently ask for an explanation of how consensus is determine and the numbers are a starting point. -- Cecropia | explains it all® 00:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's because of "number orientation", but simple pragmatics: in the absence of a standard, what to do? If adminship is "no big deal", 80% seems like a high bar. But it's pretty clear from reactions to nominations that it is considered a big deal, Jimbo's pronouncement notwithstanding. Very Verily 01:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having a look at the current nominations, Slowking man has (36/1/0), Jallan is (19/1/0), Fire Star is (18/0/1). These are users becoming admins with over 95% acceptance. With 80%, I'd suspect there would be more real serious doubts, and with even lower there would be more so. Most admins do a good job, but I feel a handful of them abuse their powers with articles they personally feel strongly about. I think a high bar is a good idea. Ruy Lopez 18:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote Threshold (Archive 25)

I noticed that the threshold for approving a RfA was edited from 80% to 72-80%. I don't disagree with this edit, but I was wondering how the range was chosen. Given the petty or trivial reasons that some users list for opposition, wouldn't a 2/3rds majority be more fair. With the current range, a few people in opposition can outvote many in support. Carrp 17:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoever made that edit does not know what (s)he is talking about. When the beauracrat poll was taken, a large number the poll options that got by far and away the most votes were 75%+ or 80%+. So above 80% is safe. Below it is beauracrat's discretion. →Raul654 18:07, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Carrp 18:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway RFA (Archive 25)

Note: I've moved this discussion from my talk page, so anyone interested can read and comment. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would have left Tony's nomination up a while longer. It was right on the borderline, as I figure it. Promotion in that instance seems questionable. Everyking 02:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it did seem pretty close to the nominal 80%. The reasons given for opposing and the manner in which I addressed them, and my consequent success in persuading 20% of the opposers that they were mistaken, suggest that David's comments on my nomination were well chosen, however. I will take due notice of all comments on my RFA, though. This was a rather more controversial candidacy than we've seen in a while--most are either straight accepts or rejects. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was about to start a section on this, and I see it's already here. I don't have anything against Tony personally (my reasons for voting Oppose were stated) but I have no problem with him being an Admin if community consensus supports it... I do not think such consensus exists at this point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia responds: I wrote the following in responsae to Everyking's message above, which pretty much summarizes why I believe consensus was reached:

I see your point on this nomination. However, it was clearly at 80% and had been for some hours. While some of the objections were substantive it seemed that the strong positive vote took those into account, as well as the fact that several "opposes" changed their minds to support ot neutral.

I didn't feel justified in letting this go, considering that it was at 80% on a large base of 60 votes, Post-facto votes one way or the other would have made this more controversial, IMO. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why ek and dante believe this promotion shouldn't have been made—whether they feel I missed something not reflected in the voting. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personally I counted 78% positive, but that's not the real issue. My concern was that it seemed clear to me that there wasn't a consensus. The "80%" is just meant to be a guideline with discretion left to the bureaucrat. Unfortunately this highlights a larger concern. As long as there is at least one bureaucrat who feels that the individual should be made an Admin, they will be. There is no system in place for either challenging the promotion or for asking for review of the bureaucrat's actions. Make no mistake, I'm not chastising you for your actions, Cecropia, you did what you felt was appropriate. Just because *I* don't feel there was a consensus does not mean that you don't, or that in fact, there wasn't one. I don't even really have a *strong* objection to Tony's adminship. I just worry that what we're seeing here is a minor shadow of larger potential problems. I wouldn't recommend a review of this issue personally unless it served as a template for resolving future issues. If asked my opinion during said review, I'd recommend Tony keep his adminship and you *not* be admonished... but I must say that I'd like the procedure to exist. Again, while I personally don't feel consensus was reached, I don't feel that you did anything wrong. I'm just not sure that we're going about things the best way possible. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

The vote was 48-12. That's exactly 80%. It would be harder to justify why 80% wasn't a consensus in this case, then to not promote him. My first reaction is that those who opposed the nomination should have made a better case as to why he was not a suitable candidate, so as to have influenced the 48 who voted "for" to either reconsider their votes or abstain. IOW, why weren't the objections of the 12 sufficient to influence the 48? I don't know what the potential problems are that you envision, but there is always the potential of an RfC, as there is with anyone.

Having said all that, I'm considering having a page attached to the RfA where, during the final 24 hours or so, before a promotion is decided upon, those who feel there are special circumstances that a bureaucrat should consider can post their concerns, with diffs, references, whatever. I don't want to encourage a "kitchen sink" page where people simply vent with the usual "he's a troll," "he would abuse his position," etc., but where voters could post issues that they believe should be considered in a close promotion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

48 + 12 + 1 = 61

48 / 61 = 78.7% (I recalled this incorrectly above, it should be rounded to 79%, not 78%)

Of course, like I said, it's not about the specific number, as it is stated that 80% is a guideline. My point about potential problems is that we don't need a REAL consensus if at least one bureaucrat can be convinced that there's consensus. I am NOT saying that this happened here, I'm just saying that the current procedure makes it difficult for "discretion" to be used, as the discretion of those bureaucrats who do NOT promote doesn't seem to matter. What I'd rather see is promotion of Admins being like blocking people... if there's disagreement amongst the Admins about whether someone should be blocked, err on the side of leaving them unblocked. Similarly, if there's disagreement amongst the Bureaucrats that a person should be an Admin, err on the side of them not being Admins. The status quo should prevail, IMO, in questionable cases. After, all, easier to elevate someone a few days late than go through the whole procedure of an RfC.

I'm not sure that "special circumstances" is really the issue here, but I suppose it wouldn't be bad to give it a shot.

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers are a "guideline"; however, through many hashings and rehashings, for better or worse, RfA regulars seem to feel most comfortable with the concept that under 75% fails, 80%+ promotes, and between 75%-80% is beuraucrat discretion; also that "neutral" means just that, and isn't considered (on its substance) unless the nomination is in that gray area. As to any one bureaucrat being able to promote, that is true, but that is why the consensus on this page seems to be that this is why we expect higher standards of agreement in approving bureaucrats. It seems to me that the RfA has been fairly quiet and smooth for the last however many months. Very bad bureaucrat calls have been reversed; beyond that I think the thing to do is for interested parties to watch an admin who they deem controversial, and IF their fears are realized, bring an RfC leading to an ArbCom.

I've suggested the possibility of a "special pleadings" page for opponents of a close nomination to make arguments in the last day before a nomination closes. The affected candidate should also have a chance to respond point-by-point if we do that. Another possibility is simple: change the numbers that constitute a "discretionary" promotion to, say, 75%-85%, or 80%-85%, or whatever. But we would need to have some kind of consensus that the community now feels a higher standard should be used. -- 08:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I retracted my vote of opposition following a conversation with Tony because it seemed important to him so I figured wtf; I'd rather retract my vote than have someone hold a grudge, especially over something that doesn't impact my life in a significant way. Personally, in the future, if consensus were to be an even 80% (or less), I'd give some weight to users who retract their votes (and not subsequently support), especially if the nominee is explaining himself to opposers on talk pages. I know many don't care, but perhaps some people don't want to be remembered as the jerk who held so-and-so's admin nomination back. FWIW, someone did solicit users (on the IRC channel) who don't often vote on RFA to go vote for Tony. Perhaps the user who said that was just kidding, but the effect can't be ignored, nor was it surprising (support count increased). This combined with the borderline consensus doesn't paint a pretty picture. I don't contest your decision to promote Tony, but there should be a better guideline than just leaving it (extensions) to the bureaucrat's discretion, "roughly 80%", etc because that will never be applied universally, and something about soliciting votes should be set forth. --jag123 08:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, here we have another issue: IRC. Personally, I am very opposed to any kind of substantive matter being discussed on IRC, since it violates the Wikipedian goal of transparency. Remember, a bureaucrat can't exercise judgment if things are going on "off the board." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, if I had seen this earlier, I would have promoted Tony Sideaway too, and I believe that Cecropia's promotion was fully justified. Bureecrats are not machines; we're promoted on the basis of having good judgement and we're expected to put it to use. →Raul654 08:11, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

78.7% is certainly good enough. Withholding promotion would not have been fair, in this case. It would still be nice to see Tony acknowledge the opposition he has met and be especially careful in the areas people have criticized him, especially (but not exclusively, since he is part of the "face of WP" now) when using admin powers. The case may be different if there are allegations that he drummed up support on IRC, at least without making clear that he was doing it. I'm not sure if such allegations are being made, but Tony may dispel them by denying them in any case. dab (ᛏ) 09:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted to allege or imply that Tony drummed up support, I would NOT have used the words "someone" or "that person", I would have said "Tony". To make it clear: afaik, Tony DID NOT drum up support. The point is not to create more controversy surrounding this particular RFA but hopefully to address the issue of soliciting votes on IRC. --jag123 10:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you, there. Let's forget I said that, then. dab (ᛏ) 12:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not a numbers game, but I would put the calculation at 80% (exactly): 48 / (48+12) = 0.8. In do not believe that adding neutrals into the total [ 48 / (48+12+1) ] is appropriate because then they are given the same status as an opposition vote. The neutral person might have well voted oppose and given the same calculation [ 48 / (48+13) ]. I know that if I were to vote neutral for someone's RFA, I would not want it calculated as an oppose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. When I vote neutral, I neither support nor oppose the nomination: neutral votes are comments or requests for answers. Neutral votes should not be counted for the percentage, but may be useful if there is a borderline case, in which case each vote should be inspected carefully to see if it is neutral-leaning-towards-support or -oppose. Jordi·✆ 09:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then you are voting improperly, IMO. There is a section called "comments" for comments, which people seem to use. A neutral vote is a VOTE. You can't not count it because "then it's the same as oppose". It's not the same as oppose. The point of counting Support votes is to count the percentage of support votes out of total votes, that's 48 out of 61. The Oppose votes were 12 out of 61. You don't just ignore a neutral vote. It's a VOTE. Now, if you want to change it so that it's called "abstain", that's fine, but right now it's NOT. Now, and I say this AGAIN, it's not about a matter of a given percentage (and this is now at least the 3rd time I've said this), this is about a perceived lack of consensus, and if you want to conflate neutral and oppose votes, that's your business, but the fact of the matter is that there are 61 people who bothered to vote and only 48 of them voted to support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Then explain what neutral votes are weighed as. Either they count, or not. "Comments" are for comments which would otherwise clutter the voting section. Jordi·✆ 18:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral votes, if you want to count them in the vote total, can only be appropriately counted as split (half-support, half-oppose). Kind of like the way ties are sometimes calculated in a sports setting. In this case, 48.5 / 61 = 79.5%. No comment on whether neutral votes should be counted, or whether 79.5% should be treated as rounding up to 80%, or whether 80% should be treated as automatic promotion. We made Cecropia a bureaucrat because we trusted his judgment on matters of adminship promotion, he exercised his judgment in this case, and I for one still trust it. --Michael Snow 19:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Neutral voters are basically saying "I'll go along with the majority opinion", so if the majority is "support", the neutral votes should be counted as support votes and if the majority is "oppose", the neutral votes should be counted as "oppose" votes. Only when there is a tie between "support" and "oppose" should the neutral votes be counted as split. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

A neutral vote is a neutral vote... there is no magic here. What is so hard to understand about there being 3 options? If 12 people vote Support and 1 votes Neutral, do we say that it was unanimous? Do we call that 100% support? Conversely, if 12 people vote Oppose and 1 votes Neutral, do we say that EVERYONE voted Oppose? Of course not. A neutral vote is a neutral vote. A given percentage of votes (usually zero, looking at the history) are Neutral. They are not Support. They are not Oppose. They are Neutral. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, Dante. But let's go over the ground rules. Originally (more than a year ago) for, against, oppose or abstain votes weren't even in separate places. Ed Poor, who did most of the promotion (no bureaucrats then either), was expected to read the substance of the comments and with his wisdom and the entrails of a few unfortunate birds, decide to promote or not. When there were a lot more candidates we moved to vote-counting, because humans (male humans especially) like to break things down to numbers. This vote-counting was not without its detractors, and I see their point, too. Now, to "neutral" votes. Yes, they are votes, but they aren't counted in the vote total or percentage, ever. If the voting falls into the area where bureaucrat discretion is needed, then the votes counts and percentage fall by the wayside. The bureaucrats put away their calculators and rummage for their tarot cards and crystal balls. In this instance, the "neutral" votes can count a lot, because the comments in all votes take on importance to devine the sentiment of the community that lies behind the numbers. I'll say again, if the editors who haunt RfA want to broaden the area of bureaucrat discretion, they need to say so. So far, I don't see any such movement. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable as such as a procedure, but if neutral votes "aren't counted in the vote total or percentage, ever", then they're not "votes" in any meaningful sense, whatsoever. If their intended function is as described, it'd be much clearer simple to have a "comments" section/option, not a "neutral" one. Alai 05:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't seen this copy of the discussion before--I thought it was just a discussion on Jim Cecropia's page between me and everyking. I thought it was all done and dusted days ago.

I acknowledge that there was opposition and I take notice of that. It means I still have to work, by responsible use of my administrative powers, to convince those opposers that they were wrong.

Having said that, 48 with 12 dissenting and one neutral seems to me to be a thumping great consensus. But then it's probably just as well that I wasn't running for a bureaucrat position. It was close enough to the nominal "bar" of 80% to raise some questions about how individual bureaucrats make their minds up. We do not need administrators whose actions will divide the community. I do and will continue to exercise my powers conservatively, in the spirit of consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tony, FYI I brought this over here since this was being questioned as a matter of policy. I don't see anyone either looking to say I acted improperly or that you shouldn't remain an admin. So far, I haven't seen anything here that would have caused me to withhold promotion in this case, but the general discussion to gauge sentiment of what "consensus" is a useful ongoing discussion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's in the spirit of a Wiki to keep activities open, so I have decided to keep an account of all administrative activity I carry out, in wikified form. Comments on individual items are invited--it's a list so you can just add a comment as a bullet point to the item you're commenting on. Anything major should of course be taken to WP:AN. User:Tony Sidaway/Admin log --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taking this action in the face of debate displays, IMHO, your eminent suitability as an admin. Fair play to you, as we say in Ireland. Filiocht

What Filiocht said, good move. dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's also the Wikipedia log page for you, which shows all blocks, protects and deletes you do, in case people just want to see what you're working on. Noel (talk) 11:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this is motivated by any alleged controversy in your Elevation, Tony, I also think this is an excellent idea, as you say for transparency, the "public understanding of sysophood", and general collegiality. Alai 05:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency (Archive 28)

I wanted to wait until both RfAs had closed and some time had passed before bringing this up, since I did not want for this to be taken the wrong way. I would like to call attention to these two RfAs: Jtkiefer's and Flcelloguy's. The first was unseccessful (no consensus reached: 18/15/8), whereas the latter was successful (40/2/4). The problem is: how could these two have opposite results given the poignant similarities between them? I'll explain: there were two decisive characteristics that were rigorously the same in both cases, one of a somewhat subjective nature, whereas the other was an objective one: 1)Both users were recognized as being excellent contributors and definitely "Admin material" (this is subjective, of course, but in both cases the people who voted generally admitted to both users' qualities); 2)Both users had been here for a short time (Jtkiefer: 2 months - Flcelloguy: 3 months). In Jtkiefer's RfA, the bulk of the oppose votes were based on the fact that, although he was a great contributor, he was not experienced enough to be an Admin, and this costed him his promotion. The same was true for Flcelloguy, however, and it was pointed out by Brian0918, and yet not nearly as many people (hardly any, in fact) opposed his nomination.
I would like to make it crystal clear that I'm neither "bitter" because Jtkiefer didn't get it nor "frustrated" because Flcelloguy did. I think both users are great, and they are definitely Admin material. I said as much in both RfAs, and I voted exactly the same in both: neutral, for lack of experience. But I wonder what happened with all the opposition that came down on Jtkiefer's RfA. Obviously, Flcelloguy had a wider support base (by the sheer number of support votes), but what intreagues me is the lack of oppose votes in Flcelloguy's RfA for lack of experience. Can anyone make sense of it? Regards, Redux 18:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It may have been the distribution of edits (for Jtkiefer, many more edits in User and User talk; for Flcelloguy, many more in Article and Wikipedia), or 2 vs 3 months may be the deciding factor for people, or maybe people were familiar with Flcelloguy's work with Mind Benders, or maybe it's just a case of sheep voting. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 19:01
Those are interesting points, but I think you would need to ask every individual voter to find a better answer. You know, real life elections are too often decided by a single event or revelation that doesn't mean rats**t in terms of the broad issues but causes a last-minute shift in voting. At any rate, a rejected candidate can come back in a month. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- One at a time: About Brian's post: I don't think so, any of these. Although there was the difference in the distribution of edits, both users have a remarkable record for such recent accounts and have done quality work that would be clear cut Adminship bound if not for the limited experience. This was openly said in both RfAs (and especially in Jtkiefer's). Second, I don't believe that anyone who would oppose a nomination on the grounds of limited experience would do so for a 2 month old account but deem that a 3-month period is sufficient (in most cases, people were saying they'd support in a few months, but not sooner than 5 or 6 months of experience). Finally, if one is opposing for an objective reason (not enough experience, regardless of how great the user is or how much work he has done in a short period), you'd think one is going to vote the same whenever an inexperienced user gets nominated, and yet the people who opposed Jtkiefer did not seem to care that another user, equally inexperienced (as per what I said about the 2 months v 3 months thing), was going to get promoted. It is also important to point out that the two RfAs were almost simultaneous, so people cannot say that Flcelloguy's RfA went unnoticed for whatever reason. Sheep voting works both ways too: once the first few opposed Jtkiefer pointing out that he was inexperienced, that certainly called other people's attention to this and led to a more significant rejection of his nomination. So why didn't it happen in Flcelloguy's RfA? In fact, sheep voting would have worked against Flcelloguy in this particular case: if it's an objective rejection, I don't see how anyone who feels experience is important (strongly enough to have opposed Jtkiefer) would feel compelled to support Flcelloguy or abstain from his RfA when the exact same objective condition was present.
  About what Cecropia wrote: Of course, the question of what actually happened in those two RfA is rhetorical. We'll never really know. But the fact that it could happen shows that there's a fundamental flaw in the system. To prevent such inconsistencies (and injustices), perhaps we should rethink it. Regards, Redux 19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Perhaps in order to eliminate reasons such as "hasn't been around long enough" or "not enough edits", there should be a decision about these two things, and make it a policy that users can't become admins until X months and/or Y edits, but that once they've passed that mark, others can't oppose them on the grounds that the user "hasn't been around long enough" or "doesn't have enough edits". This would eliminate some of the subjectivity, which, as you have shown, can result in quite large differences from user to user. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 19:37
  - I think until you do ask everyone who voted, you can't assume there is a fundamental flaw at all. And even if there was a policy in place regarding time/edits, that wouldn't stop anyone voting from having their own criteria. --Kbdank71 19:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    - Actually I did specify that "once they've passed that mark, others can't oppose them on such grounds". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 20:05

The two candidates were different people. They have different histories, different interactions with the community, and different contributions. There is no reason to expect their RfAs to produce the same result. -Splash 19:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But the reasons for opposition of one versus support for another were the same. If they had said "Jtkiefer is not a nice person", that would be different, but saying "Jtkiefer doesn't have a lot of edits/history" but then proceeding to support Flcelloguy who also doesn't have a lot of edits/history leads to the perceived inconsistency. More people are probably familiar with Flcelloguy than Jtkiefer, due to the former's work in social activities. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 20:05
Normally that'd be true. But as I said in my first comment, these two had a very particular list of similarities. About the change in policy for the RfAs, I'd support it, say, 6 months time from registration and maybe 1,500/2,000 edits? We might also consider making it mandatory for voters to provide a reason for opposing or not have their vote counted in the official tally. It's not new to Wikipedia: look at the RfC: anyone can open one against another user, but they need to provide a reasoning and diffs (not just say that user is no good). This would not seem necessary in votes to support: if one supports, it's because one feels that the nominee is doing good work - again, in the RfA, users can endorse another user's comments on the third user's behavior without having to justify why they support (but if they want to refute what's been said, they need to establish their facts). And, objectivelly speaking, no one supports to disturb Wikipedia or annoy a user. Support means Adminship, so those who support do not do it lightly. Regards, Redux 19:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I generally do take RFA's lightly. I figure, adminship can always be taken away, pages can always be reverted, and users can always be unblocked, so anything an admin does can be undone. It's better to have 100 people who at least seem interested in the encyclopedia and are somewhat willing to do janitorial work than to only have 10 committed people battling off all the vandalism. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-17 20:11
  - Except image deletion. kmccoy (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    - And page history merges. --cesarb 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant that support votes are motivated positevely. If anything, a vote to support is given because the voter likes the nominee personally; well, that's normally based on something positive that the candidate might have done for him, or that the voter saw done somewhere in the project. We support because we believe that the user will be a decent admin. Oppose votes are a different story. Many a time people vote to oppose based on grudges, misinterpretations or, as all those who participate regularly on RfAs know too well, for no good reason, just "for fun", or just plain to disturb the process.
Perhaps I should rephrase: I had said that those who vote to support do not do it lightly. Perhaps it's best put that support votes are responsible by definition, whereas oppose votes are far more likely to be irresponsible, inconsequent, and so on. Right now, the process is too chaotic, and it makes possible some unseemly discrepancies, as I believe is the example of the Jtkiefer/Flcellouguy situation. The criterion that kept Jtkiefer from becoming an Admin was objective: he was not experienced enough [even though he was an excellent contributor — as almost everyone who voted to oppose and neutral admitted]. And yet, in an almost simultaneous RfA, the exact same objective situation appeared (an excellent contributor but inexperienced) but the result was the opposite? Notice that the amount of support here is irrelevant, both candidates had a significative support. They were both acknowledged as excellent contributors who had all the makings of an admin. But because of how the RfA process is conducted, what happened could happen. Either experience (and here, "experience" is a sufficiently objective concept: how long one has been around) is a fundamental asset or not. We cannot veto a candidate on those grounds and at the same time promote another in spite of that.
And sure, anything — or almost anything — can be undone on Wikipedia (thank goodness), but we have established that that doesn't mean that anything goes in the project. And it doesn't, but on the RfA, we are surprisingly close to that: almost anything goes. And it shouldn't. Regards, Redux 00:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

One thing I'll throw out is that Flcelloguy does some work on FAC and more importantly has written a featured article. Generally his contributions to the article space are significantly more extensive. Also, downplaying the difference between 2 months and 3 months is probably a mistake. 50% difference is substantial. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:46, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
FWIW, I think RfA only very rarely renders an incorrect decision. Somehow, a bit like VfD usually getting it about right, RfA rarely promotes a wildly unsuited candidate or denies an eminently qualified one. Occasionally, someone might slip through the cracks because of the very particular circumstances that surround them at the time. They can reapply in a few weeks in that case. So I don't think there is any need for hardening of the criteria — as they stand they don't seem to get things wrong very often at all. -Splash 06:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- But we could still try to reduce the subjectivity allowed to some degree. Make the process fairer. Indeed, I don't recall anyone unsuited for the job getting promoted, but we do see with some frequency good candidates forced to withdraw, or just being denied on unclear basis — you might even say it was Jtkiefer's case, since experience was denied the importance it was given on his RfA when it could have been a decisive factor in Flcelloguy's RfA. And we need to put things in perspective: 50% of a year, for instance, being 6 months, is significant, but a 50% difference of 1 month... not so much. Regards, Redux 14:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  - I would oppose any suggested policy that would seek to mandate how users must vote ("reduce the subjectivity") unless voting itself is going to be taken out of the process. Votes made in bad faith are one thing and should be discounted when it's demonstrable, but otherwise it would not be productive to constrain voters. For individual users the criteria for adminship may amount to experience, edit counts, work on specific parts of wikipedia, etc., but for the community as a whole the criteria is consensus and I don't think anything should be done to attempt to limit that. siafu 14:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course there would always be subjectivity involved, after all how a user votes is a matter of his/her own understanding (has the candidate done significant work? etc.). "Reducing subjectivity", as it was worded, would be more about, as Brian suggested (and I had been thinking about), creating a couple of prerequisites. For instance, no one may be nominated with less than (as an example) 6 months as a registered user (counted from registration); or no one may be nominated with less than 2,000 edits (this already exists as a kind of unspoken accord). And I had also suggested that we start requiring a reason for opposing a candidate. If this is not provided, the vote would not be counted in the official tally. Notice that this would make the lives of sock puppets and trolls more difficult, and it would also discourage sheep voting and people who oppose candidates on nothing more than a personal grudge or dislike. And I could also think of requiring a change in the criterion of who's allowed to vote: right now, only anons are not allowed, but perhaps we could make it so that only accounts that are at least, say, one month old could vote. That would be decisive to cut down on sock puppets that disrupt RfAs — other than those, the recent accounts that normally come here to vote are newbies who get worked up over [usually] nothing and come here to take some sort of misguided revenge on the candidate (I mean, when you've been around for a couple of weeks, you don't even know what a RfA is most of the times). Naturally, that's not the case of all recent accounts that vote, but I believe in general we'd be doing more good than harm with this limitation; plus, they'd still be able to comment, so if they want to say that they might think that the candidate is a "tyrant" or something, they can say it, provide diffs, and it's quite probable that, if it's true, people who vote may change their votes in light of the evidence provided.
This is all a brainstorm of mine. Honestly, I don't really believe that all of this is going to get done, but I also believe that at least something needs to be done to make RfAs more just and stable. The Flcelloguy/Jtkiefer business proves, I believe, that this is necessary. Regards, Redux 21:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a general problem of sheep voting on oppose votes? IMHO, it seems much more likely that sheep voting would occur for support votes, given that users are not likely to be harassed for a support vote in the same way they are for voting oppose. siafu 18:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

More like a discussion? (Archive 29)

Obviously a support vote doesn't need much reason, you are basically agreeing the user is not an idiot. But, oppose and neutral votes should lead to discussion, which in the case of a *real* oppose vote (not a ridiculous "not enough edits", etc), could improve the user. What would everyone think about simply adjusting the RFA headers for oppose and neutral, to indicate they should be a *discussion*? Obviously comments is already a discussion. And, what would the headers say? --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that support votes don't need much reason. In my opinion, no including a reason implicitly means "I agree with previous supporters' comments". That said, it is more helpful to include a comment for an oppose vote because they're more often challenged. I do think it's rather poor Wikiquiette to oppose a candidate without any comment, but I'm not sure the rules should require it.

On another point, "Not enough edits" is usually an editor's way of saying "not enough experience", which is a very valid reason to oppose. Just because edit count doesn't tell the whole story doesn't mean that it's useless. Carbonite | Talk 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you both should read Raul's 10th law. Stating why you support someone is generally hard because you aren't supporting for any specific reason, but a lack of reasons not to. →Raul654 23:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

That was actually in the back of my mind, though it was useful to re-read the exact text. Still, a short note such as "Active on RC patrol" or "Handled difficult conflict with User X" can very helpful. Carbonite | Talk 23:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Or even just "longstanding good editor". Active participation for a long while with no problems is enough reason to make someone an admin, absent any other issues, isn't it? There's no need for people to dig for other reasons when that's really what they want to say. Of course, if there's some controversy related to the nominee, then it might make sense for support voters to comment on why they don't think that should be a problem. Aquillion 01:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I read that, Raul, and I agree. I never can think of a good reason to put with my support votes. --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, true, but I was actually referring to the more rediculous claims. Like, less then (rediculous number) posts. --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Should RfA policy be changed re "concentrated edits?" (Archive 30)

What say ye? .

(Quoting you) "If you feel otherwise, please get a mandate from the community that a 4-3 vote (or roughly 57%) is sufficient to gain adminship." I see your point about getting concensus on policy issues; While I personally think a very slim 4-3 concensus would be OK, I don't think others would agree, and will accept the 80% figure for now as the standard. (The 4-3 concensus is good enough for a small edit on an article, but maybe not OK for Adminship. That is debatable, but not certain.)

(Quoting current policy on the project page here) "There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation and one thousand edits." I would add to that, so it reads:

Proposed Policy: "There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation, one thousand edits, and most of their edits spread out, not primarily concentrated in one article or category."

(This would change policy to reflect the concerns that many have raised about me concentrating most of my edits in the Terri Schiavo article and related articles.) I seek concensus, so "Speak Up" people:

Vote Count (1/1/5/0)

1. Support Current Version

Not that I believe voting is appropriate in this case, but this talk page confuses me too much to figure out where to put my comment. I have no problems with the idea of an editor becoming admin despite editing mostly a single article or category -- it may often be inappropriate, but shouldn't be considered a major issue. Especially since I'm pretty sure GordonWatts is the only instance where it's ever been brought up. Tuf-Kat 18:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I voted with my critics to be a good guy --- plus it might make them be quite for once.--GordonWatts 18:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx 4 voting; Actually, I agree with you, but I voted against my conscience so I would vote "with" my many critics, and that was a higher "conscience" reason. Additionally, I just now made an edit change to that page reflecting the concensus (with which I voted, even though I actually agree with you here 100%.)--GordonWatts 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon decided that Szyslak ought to have voted here and added a vote for him. Gordon, it's enough that you try to bully people into voting on your poll, voting FOR them really is too bad. I have removed it (it's pasted under its own heading below), and adjusted the vote count. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Support Proposed Version

I support the proposed version because it tells the truth of what standards are for those voting.--GordonWatts 11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Voting Is Evil

Don't vote on everything. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As above. --Carnildo 19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. The voters supporting/opposing an admin can decide for themselves. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This is requests for adminship, not votes for adminship. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This is useless. Gordon, reflect on what I have to say and try again after two months or so. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Nichalp. Gordon, stop complaining about the current RfA process, and apply again after a couple of months. If you can leave this controversy behind you, I think you'll make a good admin. — JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Special cases may apply. Leave it to the editors voting on the RfA. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

4. Voting is good

In principle. Grue 12:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

5. Neutral

Comments

I will not get mad if my version does not get concensus, but I will be peeved if the rules, whatever they end up being, are not followed: We must strive to keep our word.--GordonWatts 11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Consensus is not achieved by voting. 4-3 is not consensus, neither is 8-2. Consensus is when everyone concerned in a debate can agree sufficiently with a particular outcome so as to be able to live with it. Consensus is not about one or more parties getting their way, it is about avoiding win-lose outcomes. Given the level of strongly-held oppose votes in your particular RfA, there was no earthly way that consensus to promote could ever have been reached. If I may be so bold as to offer some belated, retrospective advice, the sensible course of action for you to adopt would have been a quite withdrawal from debating the matter here and elsewhere around the 'pedia. I say this as someone with no particular axe to grind, having been away from here for most of this debate and having no interest whatsoever in the Terri Schiavo article; I just hate to see people banging their heads against brick walls and distracting so much admin time and energy that could otherwise be put to more fruitful use. Now I realise that by responding to you I am inviting a prolonged, multi-coloured reply. I will read anything you say, but I may as well warn you know that my position on consensus is not likely to change, being based on fairly unshakeable principles. I should also add that I intend no particular criticism of you because you fail to understand what consensus means; many more experienced Wikipedians than you evince the same blind spot. Filiocht | Talk 12:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe you mean well, and you are right that this would have been better for me in the long run, but I was thinking of the next person who would come to an RfA and get judged based on dry numbers or picked at over trivial matters that had recently occurred, in which editors were looking myopically at small things and missing the bigger picture. This is not to say I am the most qualified candidate, but I would not have applied if I thought I was unqualified. That being said, it may be moot: I may be too busy to edit on a regular basis (and, hence, Admin as well). However, I do understand concensus -it is that ideal; So... would you care to vote on my request for feedback here? Vote any way you like, but be forewarned, I hope to seek enforcement for all equally of whatever the result is -and that means retroactive -that is, if the policy remains as is, you may hear me inform editors that the policy was not followed by those voting because they in fact did criticize me (in part) for concentrating to heavily on one area of the 'pedia here. However, if they were right, then change policy by all means.--GordonWatts 13:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, there is no policy to be changed. People are nominated or nominate themselves. Others come by and vote one way or another. A result emerges and the nomination passes or fails. People are free to support or oppose as they see fit, for whatever reasons take their fancy. The great glory of the process is its lack of structure. Anyone whose nomination fails is free to come back and try again after a month or so, but they are well advised to consider why they might have failed the first time and what actions they should take in the interim to address both the explicit and implicit objections that surfaced. As a general rule, going around the various fora complaining that one was the victim of an injustice or that the process needs to be changed is not generally speaking the best approach to adopt. To quote from one of my favourite books, "Master thyself, then others shall thee beare".

As for your invitation to vote, I'll decline, if you don't mind. I'd rather seek consensus, on the whole. Filiocht | Talk 14:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I quote:

"If you want to make enemies, try to change something."
-Woodrow Wilson

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"As a general rule, going around the various fora complaining that one was the victim of an injustice or that the process needs to be changed is not generally speaking the best approach to adopt." You did not read what I wrote; I am not asking for change; I am asking for concensus. You may support or oppose my proposal. "As for your invitation to vote, I'll decline, if you don't mind." Well, I do mind if you criticize me for not seeking concensus, but when I finally do seek concensus, you criticize me; If this is not the right way, then pray tell, what is??--GordonWatts 14:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Please re-read my first post above, which begins Consensus is not achieved by voting. Now, do you not agree that by voting on your proposal, I'd be contradicting myself? Here's my proposed RfA procedure, quoting myself again: People are nominated or nominate themselves. Others come by and vote one way or another. A result emerges and the nomination passes or fails. People are free to support or oppose as they see fit, for whatever reasons take their fancy. The great glory of the process is its lack of structure. Anyone whose nomination fails is free to come back and try again after a month or so, but they are well advised to consider why they might have failed the first time and what actions they should take in the interim to address both the explicit and implicit objections that surfaced. Please note what aspects of this description of the process you disagree with, if you want to initiate a discussion which might or might not lead to a consensus. Please also note that the point you are inviting votes on is not a policy, but a guideline. Note also, in the light of your edit summary, that I did not post the Woodrow Wilson quote above. It may say something about your general willingness to take things personally that you managed to read this broadly sympathetic intervention by User:Nichalp as a criticism. Also, my remarks about your general behaviour on Wikipedia fora were not intended as a criticism, but as a pointer towards why you are failing to get much support. My guess is that you are generally pissing people off, though I may be wrong. Realistically, the best course of action open to you, if you really want to be an admin, is to drop this campaign, go about the business of editing and mantaining the project for a month or so, and then wait to see if someone else will nominate you (on the whole these nominations tend to be more successful than self-noms). If you are actually not that interested in being an admin but are just trying to make a point, please desist immediately. There is a policy that covers that kind of thing. I'll be leaving this PC shortly, so please do not take my failure to respond further today personally. Filiocht | Talk 14:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
"Now, do you not agree that by voting on your proposal, I'd be contradicting myself?" I disagree because voting and achieving a concensus are not mutually exclusive: you can do both at the same time. I am using a mathematical method of solititing feedback to see what the consensus is; it is more accurate than random questions, in which the amount of concensus is oft times misquoted. "Note also, in the light of your edit summary, that I did not post the Woodrow Wilson quote above." I saw that Nichalp posted it, but then I forgot: Oops! I am human. I attributed it to you. "It may say something about your general willingness to take things personally that you managed to read this broadly sympathetic intervention by User:Nichalp as a criticism." you misread me; I'm sorry for being ambiguous; I did not mean to either criticize or praise you (I though you had posted it), but merely to nickname you, as a way of providing an explanation point -somewhat humorously, like when one does it verbally. I think I'll be less ambiguous in the future. I agree that Pres. Wilson might be right, but I'm not looking for one particular outcome, so his humor is moot, but interesting. "My guess is that you are generally pissing people off, though I may be wrong." Both: I am both irritating and also beneficial: I have already been the catalyst for one change in policy: See the link below, where the "edit war" was added to the list of prohibitions for Featured Article candidates; I also prompted some to consider making the "vote closing" template stronger, but nothing came of it; I am -in this venture for feedback (and the link at bottom of page) trying to get clear on what's the real policy, according to concensus, which can change the policy if there is concensus to do so. As far as "how many votes" constitutes a clear concensus on my questions here, I will leave that to the Bureaucrats who traditionally count the votes and do this function, as in RfA. "If you are actually not that interested in being an admin but are just trying to make a point, please desist immediately." I'm not trying to "make a point." I'm trying to convince people to either follow policy, or change it -so the next guy in line here is not mistreated. OK, my turn for a funny quote -which you may have seen posted elsewhere: "If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk." --Thomas Paine [5] In other words: I am trying to prevent the rights of one from being violated, so this doesn't spread to hurt other editors.--GordonWatts 15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add a positive rather than a negative to that statement - i.e., 1000 edits which demonstrate a breadth of involvement in the project. That is the reality - 1000 edits with none to the Wikipedia namespace isn't going to work in most cases, nor is 1000 VfD edits. Of course, it's an observation and not a rule, something to bear in mind if you are seeking nomination or to nominate another. Guettarda 15:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: Feel free to vote in opposition to my proposal if you like. See also: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Issue_2:_The_.22What_is_a_Fac.22_standard for related proposals.

Incase you didn't notice, it wasn't a criticism, it is a famous quote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I said this on your talk subpage, but it never got a response and you haven't otherwise addressed the point that I've seen, so here it is, for whatever good it may do:

I think your RfA proves that you are not a trusted member, which is not something easily determined beforehand. Perhaps I can only speak for myself: I don't trust you. Not being blocked for blatant abuse is not sufficient to establish trust. It indicates a lack of active distrust, or at least it indicates that no one has yet believed you were doing anything that was so destructive to the wiki that a note on your talk page wouldn't suffice to stop it. And no more than that. I do not trust you to follow community consensus, or to avoid getting into disputes with other admins, or to handle disputes in a reasonable manner; I would oppose your request for adminship because while you are known you are not trusted and thus you fail the second criterion. (And I don't give a damn about how many edits in what namespaces you have or how long you've been here, beyond the minimal standards needed to establish some sort of investment in your identity here.)

Perhaps I am wrong, and you would not do any of these things I fear. But I do not trust you, and your actions over the past week have not inspired confidence that I should. We have these loosely-defined guidelines so that we may interpret them liberally with judgment and discretion, and are not locked into a strict quantitative system which could be easily gamed. There are many flaws in the RfA process that have caused suitable candidates to fail to reach consensus. I do not believe your non-promotion is an example of this. You have received an expression of no confidence from the community, and so your trusted status was not as obvious as you may have thought. Policy was followed.

[end original posting]

For someone to be violating your "rights" you have to have had them in the first place. You seem to think you have, which is not the case; the loose guidelines expressed for qualification for adminship do not entitle anyone to anything. You have the privilege of editing; you have requested the further privilege of a few extra technical capabilities, which with most—but not all—regular contributors there is no reason to deny. With you we denied them. Which does not impair your ability to use the site as you have been in any way. If we were really trying to censor you, you would have been blocked and your nimerous postings deleted, but as you can see they still stand.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It's intended to be a community of reasonable people with the goal of building an encyclopedia; such policies as we do have are not intended to be hard rules robotically enforced, because reasonable people can be expected to use good sense and know when a guideline should be followed and when to adapt further to an individual situation. And when they disagree, to discuss. The only one here who seems to believe you have been mistreated is yourself. Please consider that this may mean that you have misjudged the community standards, rather than that the community has done you a gross injustice. Pushing the issue is helping neither you nor Wikipedia. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kat here. Adminship is "no big deal", as you've so many times noted. But it's still something that we don't give to people if we don't think they can handle the responsibilities. I know that if I overstep my boundaries as an administrator, I will receive a sharp reply from involved editors (and well I should). And if I do something wrong as an administrator, I know that I will apologize for it, and attempt to make amends. That's all I ask in an administrator- to be able to admit when they're wrong, and make up for their mistakes. But you're showing me the polar opposite here. Ral 315 16:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First, in answer to Ral 315: I came here to seek consensus, but instead of helping with the solution (voting above, either for me or against me), you gripe about a problem. You talk about problems, but you do not contribute to the solution. Talk the talk? Well, walk the walk. Also, while you may be disciplined for an overstep, I've already demonstrated several examples where a double standard has existed, implying it still does. (Quoting Kat) "I do not trust you to follow community consensus..." Sometimes policy trumps consensus -if the consensus is not willing to change the policy: My being criticized for the RfA renomination was a good example: Both policy and Mark, the FA editor (see Jimbo's page) said to go ahead, but Mark caved in to the other editors' concensus, which violated known policy: Consensus is not binding when it conflicts with policy, which allowed my FA-renomination, because the editors were perfectly able to change policy and didn't. This was double standard application, holding me to a nonpolicy standard. Also, sometimes concensus is "wrong." If you don't believe me, then please explain why the Titanic shipbuilders' (experts, no doubt) insisted by concensus to not include sufficient lifeboats on that big boat? Concensus is not always right. Don't forget that, Kat. "Perhaps I am wrong, and you would not do any of these things I fear." Well, I never had any problems before these people started deciding to use their own standards instead of policy. That is so easily remedied: Change policy -which is what I am trying to determine right here: Is a change in policy needed? You gripe about my actions, but you have not voted either for or against me above. If you want to complain, then earn my trust: Cast your vote, you and Ral315. You and anyone else that wants to talk, do something constructive instead of just talking; Then, we can talk after the work is done. Otherwise, your arguments are not persuasive: I'm doing my part. And you?--GordonWatts 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Policy never trumps consensus. Rather, consensus defines policy. If you think that the Wikipedia community is wrong about some issue where the community has reached consensus, you are entitled to attempt to convince the community of the errors of its ways by talking to us about how we're wrong. Make an argument. Explain why we're mistaken. But lawyeristic appeals to policy statements (which are nothing more than attempts to put our consensus opinions into words so that newcomers aren't totally confused while they make the transition into full members of the community) will get you nowhere.

It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that should be no firm standards for adminship; rather, an editor will be promoted to administrator when the community decides that that editor is trustworthy to bear the extra responsibility. Many people have tried to introduce firmer standards (such as a minimum edit count or minimum time on the wiki) but such efforts have been repeatedly rebuffed. The statement on the RFA main page is merely an empirical observation of what seems to be the historical realities of candidacies for adminship; it is not a statement of policy, even in the weak sense of "policy" I outlined above. If you want to change policy, then change the consensus. You're not going to do that by demanding a vote, but rather by making an well-reasoned civil argument to the thousands of Wikipedia editors who comprise the community. If you convince them that you're right, then consensus will shift, and policy will be changed. If not, then not. Kelly Martin 17:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Policy never trumps consensus. Rather, consensus defines policy." It's supposed to be like that, but since no one changes the policy or voted or said anything constructive to identifying policy, it didn't work. "If you think that the Wikipedia community is wrong about some issue where the community has reached consensus..." I did not say the policy was DEFINITELY wrong; I merely said I had a preference; I was not seeking to change policy; I was seeking to identify it, so I could know what the standard is! Now, the lack of enforcement was definitely wrong. "If you want to change policy, then change the consensus." I was seeking to IDENTIFY -not change, hello? Did you not read my post herein? Now, "identifying" is definitely done by voting; I can't read minds, lol. (I was trying to identify policy so I could know how to act, what to expect, what not to expect, etc. Part of my problem was this: People can't read what I write. I;'m not mad, just frustrated; Take care,--GordonWatts 18:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to cast a vote. This "vote" that you've organized is invalid. If you want to change a policy, the accepted way to do so is to propose an idea, allow other editors to criticize, add to, edit, or reject said idea, and if the idea proves positive, implement it. You tell me to do something constructive. I don't call disrupting multiple talk pages with your views on radically changing policy because you think you should be an administrator "constructive". You tell me to stop "griping about a problem". Well, that's EXACTLY what you're doing! If you really wanted to be an administrator, a few months of good editing, respect for other users in general, etc. probably would have got my vote. And you have shown a lot of contempt for Raul654, a VERY well-respected editor on Wikipedia. At this point, I wouldn't support a RfA. Nor would I a year from now, until you can prove that you can handle the tools. And complaining on RfA's talk page, Jimbo Wales' talk page, etc. won't prove anything to me. Ral 315 17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"And you have shown a lot of contempt for Raul654, a VERY well-respected editor on Wikipedia." No. I am very glad he helped out a lot initially in the FA-process, even helping edit and stuff, but then when he had promised it would be OK to resubmit Schiavo for FA (see Jimbo's page for details) after a few weeks, he went back on his word, based on concensus; This time, he had the authority to override concensus, and since the article had been fixed, it was ready -and he reneged! The edit war, the only other concern, was over shortly after it began, so I am at the least disappointed in Mark AKA Raul654. He played politics instead of merit, but I am hoping he will "come around" and honor the hard work of the many Schiavo editors -not just me.--GordonWatts 18:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"...and if the idea proves positive, implement it." Meh! Beat you to it, Big Dog! Look at the front page; I changed the text and implimented ths unopposed (and apparently good?) idea. I don;t like it, but it is more honest with the "way things are." We can't lie to people when we write polocy.--GordonWatts 18:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to concur with both of you guys, but try not to bite him too much, huh?

His RFA failed, but instead of being so angry or disturbed (thats the way its seems), he should try to address the issues that others have with him, since we are the ones who actually vote him in. All his demands etc really accomplishes nothing, and he should know that this will hurt his chances of becoming an admin; I dont reckon that many others will support him after seeing how he handle disputes.^{Journalist^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}}

"he should try to address the issues that others have with him" I'm trying to do that here, but you are just talking and not doing anything: For example, tell me this: Are my proposed policy changes good or bad? If you don't give me any answer, I will be more than justtified in being bold and making the changes myself, so now's your chance: If you don't like my edits, then tell me what the policy should be. Vote above.--GordonWatts 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Bishonen's suggestion to not vote above: OK, then how do we determine "concensus?"--GordonWatts 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- By talking. android79 17:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  - OK, "talk" in that voting box above, you space alien Android you. Vote for me or against me, but VOTE, and let your voice sing. Then, no matter the results, let us use the rules equally for all. OK?--GordonWatts 17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    - We've been talking in the comments box above...and on other pages...and on your RfA...you just don't like the results. Ral 315 17:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Voting is not discussion. Polls do not necessarily determine consensus, though they can demonstrate it after discussion has taken place. It is this basic concept that you are failing to understand that is leading to all of your problems here. I think your proposed policy change is a bad idea because it sets arbitrary and artificial criteria for something I feel ought to be more of a case-by-case thing. My thoughts on administratorship are here. Rough guidelines and personal criteria are what work best on RfA. (Also, if the proposal above were policy, it is unlikely that Nv8200p would have been made an admin, and WP:IFD would be much messier as a result.) android 79 18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no further comments to make. Whatever I say honestly, patiently and sympathetically leads to a long reply and doesn't even stick to the core topic. And since Gordon thinks I've criticised him, well, I've said what I have to say, and I sincerely hope he reflects on my thoughts from another angle. I'd rather not waste my time 'criticising' him any further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Your advice, Nichalp, is generally good, but you have not voted on the above, so I am having a hard time ascertaining concensus. You don't have to vote in my favor --wait a second; This is moot: I already made the edit change in question. If you disagree, then revert, but please, if you do so, log in an "oppose" vote with some reason in the section here in talk.--GordonWatts 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Do neutral votes count? (Archive 34)

I am a little bit worried that those who posted neutral votes are not having their votes counted. I know the guideline is that the bureaucrat takes them into account when the voting is marginal, but it isn't obvious which way they are counted. I have seen a few cases where a candidate's support is given as the fraction of supporting votes to the total of supporting and opposing votes: neutral votes not being counted at all. I'm not entirely sure what those who cast neutral votes think they are voting for (very weak support, very weak oppose or "I don't care"), but I'm sure they probably wouldn't do it if their vote was uncounted. Thinking it over, if I may, I can see three ways to deal with this:

Scrap neutral votes: if they don't really make difference, we shouldn't suggest that they might.
Count each neutral vote as half a vote in support and half a vote in opposition: this suggests total abivalence.
Count a neutral vote as a supporting vote when calculating whether a candidate's election should be extended(~75%), but as an opposing vote when calculating whether to promote the candidate (~80%): thus, being a vote against promotion, but for extension.

For example, if a candidate received 70 supporting votes, 20 opposing votes and 10 neutral votes, we could say that the support was 70/90, or 77.8%, ignoring all neutral votes. If we counted the neutral votes as half each way, the candidate would have 75/100, or 75% of the vote. The third method would see that support is at 70% of total votes cast, and not eligible for promotion. However, counting the neutral votes as support gives 80% in favour of extending the election.

I believe the first example is just wrong: neutral votes count for nothing, and the support is slighly inflated by it. The second system works quite well, and gives a fairer representation of the voting pattern. However, I believe the third oprtion allows voters to be more nuanced: "I'm not sure if this candidate should be promoted, but I'm also not sure whether this candidate should be dropped so quickly". Of course, bureaucrat judgement should not be done away with here, but simply given a more accurate tool for measuring support.

I apologize for the essay! --Gareth Hughes 15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point raised. But in some cases its is difficult to gauge in which way the neutral vote should count. The 70% part is not applicable as the neutrals are not opposing the nomination. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, but in my opinion neutrals shouldn't be anything other than a way of saying "yes, I've seen the nomination and I've thought about it and I can't really go either way." Andre (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm for option #3 - RfA is not a vote, its purpose is to find community consensus for promoting someone to adminship. That's why only those votes that clearly support the candidate should be counted as supporting. For someone to vote neutral clearly suggests that there's something wrong with the candidate that would possibly be a problem if they were promoted. However, they shouldn't be treated as opposing votes, but they shouldn't be ignored either. That's why the third option sounds best to me. - ulayiti (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

None of the three are relevant because the Bureaucrats shouldn't be merely counting votes in such close cases. There's no need to chaneg the way RfA works because it's working just fine. -Splash^talk 21:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

How about changing it to support/oppose/abstain? BD2412 ^talk 22:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's possible. But I think at the moment there are 4 ways I can respond to an RfA. I can support, oppose, be neutral or abstain. Being neutral is taking an interest, writing a few sentences that say why you don't want to or do want to. Hoping that what you write will be read by others and by the Bureaucrats if it becomes close. It's saying also "persuade me one way or the other". Abstaining is rather different to that. -Splash^talk 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

True, but strictly speaking we abstain from every RfA in which we don't vote - so casting a vote that says abstain carries a different message, specifically that the voter has enough interest in the RfA to comment, but does not feel that either active support or active opposition is justified on their part. I'm parsing words excessively here, stop me any time. BD2412 ^talk 23:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The very phrase "cast a vote of abstain" is a contradiction. One cannot "vote abstain"; rather, one abstains from voting. A neutral vote is not an abstension; at best it's an abstension with a speech. We might as well just call them "neutral". Kelly Martin 14:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to Gareth's question - if people wanted their vote counted, they would vote Support or Oppose. A neutral vote without an explanation is nothing - literally - but a neutral vote with an explanation may convince another voter one way or another. It's simply a way of saying, "I have an opinion, but not a strong enough one o go one way or the other", or "I lean towards Support (or Oppose)", and I would like my vote heard. Unless you know someone very well, chances are when they come up for RfA you only have partial knowledge to go on. If you look through the Oppose and Neutral votes, you may find some red flags which either send you to their contribs, or you may choose not to vote. I have found that neutral votes have much more influence on my voting than do Support or Oppose. Guettarda 19:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the criteria (Archive 43)

If You ask a lot of users, 4 out of 5 would like a promotion, even by relatively new users. It's a highly coveted commodity. Knowing what criteria the folks in charge might help those who attempt this in the future. Like, exactly how many Support votes (minus Oppose votes) do You need to get that promo? -- Eddie 06:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

75–80% constitutes consensus. That's right there on the main RfA page: "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75-80 percent support". Problem is, bureaucrats don't just count votes: Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy. There can always be mitigating circumstances that allow a 72% support to pass, or a 82% to fail (rarely). —BorgHunter (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, BorgHunter (talk). BTW, I didn't hesitate to try My luck at the RfA a few days after registering, thinking IP contributions would count, but that's not the case. -- Eddie 07:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you were unwilling to publicly disclose what IP you made your contributions under during your RFA, making it impossible for the community to evaluate those contributions. —Cleared as filed. 07:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I forgot the IPs I used. I travel a lot and I don't keep track of the IPs I use. I said that because I was under stress at the time. Luckily I'll have a lot to show on My next attempt. Since then, I put up a future RfA subpage, which I can update to reflect contributions. Feel free to talk about it here. -- Eddie 07:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with some recent admins (Archive 44)

I'd like to propose that nominees gain a certain number of votes before being promoted. I've recently had a problem with two newish admins: one is completely clueless and rude, and the other is a very poor editor and a troublemaker. I was surprised to see they'd been elected, but when I checked their noms, I saw one had received only 16 and the other 19 support votes. This seems way too low to me, especially as the last few months has seen higher numbers of people voting overall. Any thoughts on introducing a threshold of, say, 30 support votes? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't count votes anyway... look for consensus. RfA is not just about the votes. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but when there's so few people supporting a nomination, can it be considered community consensus? I don't think it would be unreasonable to set a quorum of 30 voters. If a candidate is too unknown to have 30 people give their opinion on their RfA, they probably need to interact with the community more. Carbonite | Talk 19:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's be fine with me. A quorum of 30 is not too high a hurdle.--Alabamaboy 19:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to go back through the list of recent Admins to point out great Admins who received less that 30 votes? The number of votes is arbitrary anyway. BD2412 received 100 votes, so that's not unheard of, I suggest making the number 100. That way we rule out any undeserving editors. It's just a little silly, is all. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I received 29. :-P —BorgHunter (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Many admins with less than 30 votes (myself included) had RfAs when the community was significantly smaller. I'm also against hard number, so we could instead provide a range (perhaps 25-35 voters) for a quorum. An RfA with 25 voters each providing a reason would obviously be preferable to 30 voters each supporting "per nom". It would be up to bureaucrats to make the call on which RfAs fall short of reaching a quorum. Carbonite | Talk 20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hard numbers are bad. I think the idea of a quorum makes sense, but I would prefer to have bureaucrats decide on that quorum on their own, rather than adhering to hard numbers. Just as the 75–80% is a general guideline, not a hard limit, I think a quorum of roughly 30 votes should be a general guideline for bureaucrats, rather than a hard, set minimum. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(ec) Seems reasonable to me. Also, this problem could be solved by making de-admining somewhere near as easy as admining, but this has been hashed over many times and it doesn't look like it's likely to happen. This approach would also have the advantage of getting rid of admins who may have enjoyed lots of support at one time but no longer have the confidence of the community. Friday (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

After my 20,000 edits, I've seen a lot of boorish and/or clueless admins, but their number seems to have grown dramatically these last months. Therefore, I support Slim Virgin's proposal. --Ghirla | talk 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is slightly different: more people are needed to vote here. I have voted only once because most editors don't usually work on the same articles as I do. However, I did not know about this page until I have found it in some user page. Since this is something that concerns the whole Wikipedia, why not making it more public? -- ReyBrujo 19:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Policemen are getting younger these days, too... Shimgray | talk | 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What that have do to with the topic? --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem I see with demanding a minimum number of votes is it may lead to campaigning by those highly in favor of a candidate.--MONGO 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that campaigning in favor is unacceptable. It has led to rigged votes in the past. This is a challenge yet to be addressed by wikicommunity. --Ghirla | talk 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What about requiring a minimum number of supporters providing unique reasons? Ok, bad idea, but still, it may be worth thinking about a way to set quorum that isn't so conducive to campaigning. I do like this quorum idea, just as I like it at WP:AFD and in all policy-setting discussions. The Literate Engineer 20:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of successful RfAs ending 14 December or later (roughly 2 weeks), 9 didn't receive 30 support votes and 8 failed to reach a 30 vote quorum. It just seems silly to set some arbitrary number telling people that if they don't get that many votes, sorry, they can't be sysopped. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Those figures suggest it's a problem, LV, and therefore time to address it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that in many of the RfAs LV mentioned, editors are simply voting or providing a minimal comment, rather than providing any reason for their support. I share SlimVirgin's concern that the screening may be getting a bit lax on RfAs. How low are we willing to go? Should an admin with 10 votes on his/her RfA be sysoped? The community's growing at a rapid rate, which means that 20 supporters ain't what is used to be. Carbonite | Talk 20:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise in order that an admin properly demonstrates a consensus but the rule is not too harshly applied: minimum of 20? 30 seems a bit high for something that's not supposed to be a big deal.Gator (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Twenty is too low, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflcit)Why too low? And why is just 10 more the right number? We can't escape the fact that this is arbitrary, but we need to at least try to place some meaning bebhind the choice in the number. Our only other option is to tell bureacrats that they have the discretion to not promote based on too few support votes, no matter what the percentage....but give them no number for guidance....it's either arbitrary or giving little guidance and great discretion to bureacrats...not sure which is better...Gator (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How about 25 then? I wouldn't want the bar to be set too high but on the flip side a minimum number seems like a good idea.--Alabamaboy 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 25. The community is growing and more people are voting in RFA. But sometimes a person could have 30 or more votes and be a horrible admin. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with any new rule about minimum number of votes one needs to become an admin. Let a bureaucrat use the common sense when promoting, no point in piling up rules. And back to SlimVirgin's original post. On occasions I have been rude and clueless myself, with 56 support votes. Nobody's infallable. Maybe one should just be more gentle towards new admins and try to expain things to them instead of wishing they never became admins to start with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Here here. There are enough arbitrary rules in Wikipedia already in my OP. I'm willing to trust the bureacrats and let them knwo they can decline to promite even if someone has the prerequisite percentages.Gator (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem? Just vote oppose if you think someone is not experienced enough. If they have <20 support votes, 6 opposes would do the trick. Grue 20:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the reasoning behind this, but are the statistics of rude admins or ones who are clueless substantially higher among lower vote getters than those that get 50 support votes? I can name a dozen admins who had huge support totals that are rude, use the rollback button when they should be doing a standard revert and who seem biased to the point of being clueless in regards to this project and admin responsibilities. I am opposed to having the crats NOT promote someone just because there are not over 20 or 30 support votes unless we do make that a standard....it shouldn't be up to them to decide to not promote based on this unless a guideline is implemented.--MONGO 20:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest WP:GRFA#If you disagree with consensus as valuable reading. It explains what how the bureaucrat decides what to do. Izehar 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:GRFA#If you disagree with consensus deals with the precentage of oppose to support...this relates to a minimum number of supports and is a different issue.--MONGO 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I share the concern over misbehaving administrators, and yes, not sysopping someone in the first place is far easier than desysopping them. That begin said, I don't think this proposal is really the way to go. Of course, I should note that my own bid for adminship only received 28 votes and therefore would not have passed under this proposal, and I happen to think I make a semi-decent administrator. Besides, I'm not sure vote-count correlates very well with administrator suitability. Two administrators who were recently desysopped for misusing administrative powers both became administrators before RfA was established, yet I have no doubt that they would receive more than 30 votes. On the other hand, if there is a low vote turnout, then it will only take a few oppose votes to prevent the nomination from succeeding, especially if there are already some opposes. And if someone's nomination is unanimous, even with a relatively low turnout, I'd be hard-pressed to argue that that person shouldn't be an administrator. I can understand a cutoff for very low numbers, like 10, but I'd expect a bureaucrat to make that decision and I certainly feel that 30 is too high. I'd rather see more effort going to increase community participation in RfA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

KS, you stood quite a few months ago (March, as I recall), when people did vote less, but in recent months the numbers voting have increased a lot, so for someone to get only 19 votes now isn't the same endorsement as it was back then. And I agree completely: you're exactly the kind of person we should be promoting. If you'd care to clone yourself a few dozen times, I'll withdraw my proposal. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If the voting is too low, then the bureaucrat should relist or let it stand a couple more days. The seven days is the minimum period of time and there is nothing which states that the nomination can't stand longer.--MONGO 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right and if I recall correctly that's exactly what has been done before. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some problems exist, and that something needs to be done, but not sure that this is the way to do it. I just fundamentally don't like a hard number, plus this is guaranteed to lead to campaigning (either overt or covert).

If you look at RfA currently, the same person has voted oppose on the first 3 candidates (with valid reasons). What this suggests is that most people are too polite or too nonconfrontational to vote oppose, and only a few people actually do it even if they have reasons to. So I think the real problem here might be more that candidates are getting too few oppose votes than that they are getting too few support votes.

If we had a voting system that allowed voters more expression (say strong support/support/neutral/oppose/strong oppose), then the voters in two minds would be encouraged to express their voice. To qualify, a candidate would have to have a consensus of support votes, but also a majority of strong support votes. This is just an example; my point is that making voting more than trinary might help things. Arvindn 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim: do you have any reason to think that the reason we're supposedly seeing more rude and poor admins is because we do not have a policy regarding a minimum number opf support votes? In other words, how do we know this would even solve the problem, assuming that there is one?Gator (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't solve it but it should reduce the problem, Gator. If someone has been here for months and yet attracts only 19 votes (in the current climate of fairly high turnout), it suggests minimal community interaction, which means we actually have no idea at the time of the vote whether they'll be good admins or not. Having a minimum threshold would go some way to dealing with that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess my questions was a littel vague, you didn't really answer it. I was wondering what evidence you have that this would help "reduce" any problem (assuming one exists)? I agree that a low support might not reveal whether someone would be a good admin, but that's different then saying that allowing such editors to be promoted is contributing to a problem. I'm just looking for hard evidence here, not assumptions. Thanks.01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, have you shared your concerns with the admins in question. They may think that they were behaving OK and may respond well to criticism. IMO we should WP:AGF and hear their side of the story. I have faith in the current system (it promoted me with [55/1/1]) and most of our admins seem good to me. Izehar 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, I deliberately didn't give any identifying information because I didn't want this to look like a personal attack on anyone. I could possibly discuss the behavior with one of them. With the other, I may try, but my guess is it will be fruitless. My point with this proposal is that mature interaction with other users should be obvious before someone is promoted, so that we know they're at least capable of it. If someone can muster only a very small number of votes, it means there aren't enough people vouching for that maturity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If anything, I'd say the problem is the opposite one -- that we reject too many perfectly good candidates, not that unacceptable ones are slipping through. The proposed measure doesn't seem to address any actual problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite - it's the quality of the votes, not the quantity. One user asking searching questions (and hopefully getting good answers) is worth 50 pile-on votes with minimal or silly comments. Rd232 ^talk 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - quality counts. We've also been seeing a lot more of ballot box stuffing these days - it is not unreasonable to assume that may happen here should a quorum be set. What about increasing the time for voting instead, and as suggested earlier, make more of an effort to make this page well-known? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

One possible solution is to look again at the nomination process. Since mixing in self-noms with nominations by others, the number of nominations being removed early as obvious failures seems to have increased greatly. If nomination could only be by others, with no self-nomination, then I think there'd be more of a chance that those nominated will already be of a reasonable standard - enough that any pile-on and sheep votes aren't going to be as much of a problem. We could even go one stage further - although I'd guarantee that this idea would be shouted down as Wikicabalism - and only allow admins to nominate people. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not allowing self-noms would go a long way in my opinion also. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think some voters actually prefer self-noms, as showing initiative. AnnH ^(talk) 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even know people could self-nom; disallowing that would seem to go a long way towards reducing the number of auto-failures, and improve on the "must be a community player" aspect of Adminship which many consider to be valuable already. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm completely against this idea. RFA is already too much of a 'popularity contest'. The ability of someone to 'make friends' with other users is inevitably going to be a factor, but we shouldn't go out of our way to make it more important than it already is. Lots of people work on AfD and RC patrol... so users who work in those are going to be better known, but not necessarily any more deserving, than those who do 'stubs for redirect' or some other less common activity. A wikignome who hides in their lair and never talks to anybody but works diligently and properly at improving the encyclopedia is going to be a far better admin then someone who just schmoozes all the right people while not really contributing much... but the latter would get admin status alot sooner than the former under the proposed change (even moreso than they do now). If you really want to have a good idea that new admins aren't going to be 'problems' the only way I can think of to handle it would be to actually have someone thoroughly investigate each candidate's edits and report any potentially troubling activity. That still doesn't guarantee that they haven't just been behaving until they get admin status, but that'd be pretty rare and there is no way to detect such. Note - I'm not a big fan of this idea either. RFA already has alot of potential to alienate people... throw in an investigative aspect and it's practically guaranteed to get ugly. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I fear the alternative to tightening standards somehow is to occasionally desysop admins who turn out not to be good. That's pretty darn ugly too. -- SCZenz 00:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

True enough. However, that last is going to inevitably come up from time to time no matter what standards are used. Heck, maybe if it were more common it wouldn't be quite such a big deal. Could just make it an automatic thing... 'sysops who violate any of these policies are automatically de-sysoped and may not run again for one month' or something like that. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem, as I perceive it, is that admins are given far too much leeway. Sysops should be held to a higher standard than other users. Most do a good job, but some are routinely are permitted to get away with stuff that probably would cause non-admins to be blocked. Meanwhile, the abuse of administrative powers is far too common, with "regular users" relegated to second-class status.

To be clear, relatively few admins behave in this manner. The number, however, should be zero. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that admins are not subject to anywhere near the level of scrutiny that prospective admins face. What we really need is not a stricter requests for adminship process, but an equivilvant requests for de-adminship process, thereby allowing the community (and not merely an elite subset thereof) to hold sysops accountable for their actions. Nobody's perfect, but misconduct shouldn't have to ascend to the level of deleting major project pages or punching Jimbo in the face before something is done. —David Levy 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think admin abuse (as opposed to people making mistakes) is relatively rare, notwithstanding all the uninformed allegations people make when they're annoyed. I can only think of maybe half a dozen clear-cut cases of abuse that I've seen since becoming an admin. It makes a lot more sense to slightly tighten up nominations than come up with a de-adminning process with all the chaos that would entail, never mind the difficulty of getting any agreement. On the other hand, getting some agreement for raising the bar before people are promoted should be relatively easy, so long as we don't raise it too high. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I think that you and I might be applying different definitions of the word "abuse." I'm not referring strictly to egregious, bad faith acts (which are quite rare). Most of the "abuse" to which I referred is limited to instances in which admins simply overstep their bounds. Fairly common examples include blocking (or threatening to block) a user with whom one is involved in a dispute, deliberately protecting (and sometimes editing) a page as one's preferred version, or just generally claiming to possess a level of authority that doesn't exist. The sysops in question often are well-intentioned, but their actions send a very, very bad message to the community. I certainly am not implying that such an infraction should result in de-adminship, but a long-term pattern of negative behavior should not be tolerated. I believe that the institution of a straightforward de-adminship process would serve largely as a deterrent; many admins would be far more careful if their virtual immunity were eliminated.

Secondly, many solid objections to your proposal already have been raised. Without rehashing what's already been said, I'll respectfully state that I believe it to be flawed. —David Levy 01:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just going to rehash what I think has been said by a couple of people before - we should recognize that a bureaucrat may determine that an RfA does not have enough participation to show a community concensus in favor of promoting a candidate; and that the ideal solution in such a case is to hold the RfA open a few days more. bd2412 T 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems the most reasonable solution (not least of all because it's already in place). If a bureaucrat can see that there's a lack of clear support, extending the RfA does no harm. If there's still a lack of a clear answer, then perhaps that's indicative of a problem. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said. Slim, don't worry about answering my question, I consider the issue to be moot now.Gator (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to put this into perspective: Of the 17 candidates currently listed in full on Wikipedia:Recently created admins, 6 have less than 30 support votes (and one has exactly 30). -- grm_wnr Esc 02:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

<nostalga>...and to think I became an admin with 2 supports and no opposes.</nostalga> Raul654 02:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gator, I don't think it's moot at all. You wrote: "I was wondering what evidence you have that this would help "reduce" any problem (assuming one exists)? I agree that a low support might not reveal whether someone would be a good admin, but that's different then saying that allowing such editors to be promoted is contributing to a problem. I'm just looking for hard evidence here, not assumptions."

I suppose what I'm saying is that we shouldn't be promoting people when there's no evidence at all that they would make good admins; and I consider 19 support votes as not constituting enough evidence of mature community interaction. I'd say that enough people have noticed there's a problem for us to be reasonably assured that there is one. So the question is: what is the least draconian solution? Setting up a de-adminning process would be complex and unpopular, and anyway, prevention is better than cure. Creating a set of more rigorous requirements would be difficult and might exclude good candidates. Preventing self-noms might be a step in the right direction, but I think some people would oppose it. Having admins only vote for admins would be opposed, though it arguably makes a lot of sense (as things stand, any troll can turn up and vote, which makes no sense to me.) So the least draconian thing, and the easiest to enforce, is at least to ensure there is some sort of quorum of voters required before a promotion can proceed, bearing in mind that any figure (e.g. 30) will not be absolutely rigid, but will be a guideline for the bureaucrat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm strongly against strict numbers on this and there's no way in hell we're ever going to have just admins voting for candidates since that quite rightly would make people scream about there being a cabal. I would however support having bureaucrats consider whether there's enough input on an RFA for a consensus to be determined. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I see no real big problem with requiring a minimum number of support votes to pass but it must be a definite number and not an arbitrary range like a concensus suggests. I would say 25 would make a good target...and the nomination should remain there for up to 10 days, but no more than that, or at least any votes after 10 days will be tossed out. I can see where you are coming from but am concerned (even though it happens al the time) that there may be campaigning to achieve at least the minimal standard. I am mostly concerned that bureaucrats should not have to deal with anything other than a concrete number and period of time...the concensus issue as comparing support to oppose votes is a different issue.--MONGO 03:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying you would like to make the job of bureaucrats easier by adding new rules so that the bureaucrats don't need to think too much before making decisions? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep.--MONGO 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That does not make any sense to me then. It seems that SlimVirgin is really really concerned with the quality of new admins. Putting more and more rules and more restrictions on what bureaucrats can or cannot do would not help bureaucrats making good decisions on which admins to promote, rather the other way around. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would compromise at 25 as a minimum number of support votes. It would be a start at least, and could be revised depending on how it works out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I am not a strong advocate of this as I am concerned about the campaigning issue...but as I also stated, that goes on sometimes anyway. The number is arbitrary (25 or 30, so long as it is a fixed number), but do you think there should be both a minimum number of days and a maximum number for the voting process?--MONGO 04:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to hear if any current bureaucrats have any thoughts on this question, since they're the ones who would be pulling the trigger under whatever guidelines are in place. bd2412 T 04:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the [tacit minimum of] three month threshold be sufficient to iron out issues? People go to great lengths these days to scrutinise a potential candidate. If something serious is noticed, people do oppose their candidacy. I've seen many instances where the first person who produces clinching evindence starts a pile on process and virtually sinks an RFA. I've also noticed that those who frequent IRC regularly do get a higher number of votes. Most of the people who vote here are active in RC patrol and AFDs, and are more likely to support someone whom the've noticed. As mentioned above, some hardworking editors active in FAC may not make the cut, as not many would recognise them. There are also some who refuse to vote here citing it to be a popularity contest. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing I've noticed is that many people who would love to express their opinions on a candidate don't because 1) They don't know that the candidate is up for Rfa or 2) They don't know where to go. Also editcountitis is far too common in Rfas and is often taken like a joke or ignored completely. Many voters just look at the numbers without looking at the edits; what the user's really doing for Wikipedia. We need to analyze the quality not the quantity of edits. We also need to analyize their character, see what they're really like. Ask them questions. I've made it a habit to peruse the candidate's talk page as well their contributions page. Call that privacy invasion or not minding my own business, but I want to know how the user treats other people. I don't want an admin that makes great edits and fights vandalism and stuff if he's a total jerk to other users. And don't just judge a candidate by Rfa responses. Remember we are the Law, so to speak, and everyone drives safely around cops. You see the analogy? If a candidate makes a few hundred great, helpful, multifarious edits; is responsive and courtious to other users, and shows a decent knowledge of Wikipedia policy and admin powers; they got my vote. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like having a minimum vote count, and you'd think more people would be going here than less after so much time of having this page. We need to get more people here and find out why less people are voting. Personally, I just don't know most of the people on here anymore. There used to be a time where I'd know 50% of the people up here, now I don't know anyone (I was discussing with Phroziac recently how Wikipedia users have generations of sorts, and I can explain later when it's not 11:40 PM). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I only vote on people I have actually seen around enough to get an idea of what they are like. There is no time to thoroughly review each nominee with so many being put up. However, the growing size of Wikipedia also means that it gets harder to know people. If you see the same name once out of every hundred edits you might start to get an idea about that person... but if they only come up once in every thousand edits you look at you've forgotten about them from one edit to the next. The growth of Wikipedia inevitably makes it increasingly more difficult to get that kind of familiarity with people. At this point it only happens with those who work regularly in certain 'niche' areas. If they do so in well populated places like AfD, RC Patrol, IRC, et cetera then alot more people notice them and they are that much more likely to make admin. Meanwhile equally qualified people working in less populated areas go largely unnoticed... making them less likely to be nominated, less likely to get lots of votes, and easier to derail by a handful of malcontents. Setting a 'vote cap' would shut such people out entirely. Again, given the size of Wikipedia the only way to be sure admin candidates are as qualified as they were when the place was smaller is to research them... and that has become too big a job for each voter to do individually. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 10:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the size of the community today, I think it is entirely reasonable that a minimum number of votes be required to create new admins, and that 30 is not an unreasonable number. An admin who is created with only 16 support votes does not appear to be known by the community, so it's hard to see how there could be consensus about him or her. In fact, I would suggest that any new admin should need at least 30 more "Support" than "Oppose" votes to be considered as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea of having a minimum number of votes sounds like a good idea (Just my 2 cents) --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems entirely reasonable to me, given how fast the community is growing and how many new noms are coming down the pike. Even a moderate level of community interaction over a few months of time, combined with RFA regulars that evaluate candidates regardless of whether they know them personally, should get a good contributor to 30. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything has pretty much been said, so I'll just offer my regurgitated tuppence. I support the concept of there being a general guideline to becoming an admin in the 25-30 region, but I would feel uncomfortable with there being a minimum number of votes...it just seems too rigid and could encourage a nominee to solicit votes. By the way, I got 28 votes ;-p SoLando (Talk) 11:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How about making their *duration* of experience with wikipedia culture a more "essential" qualification? Are the new admins who are causing problems ones who have been part of wikipedia for at least, oh, 2 years (or whatever) or so, or are they relatively new folks who racked up high edit counts by being argumentative and trigger happy for a few months, or just bided their time until getting admin abilities? I think a few months might be a little short, but I'm interested in what others think would be a goodly amount of time to determine someone's temperment over a longer-term (are they snippy and mean over the winter holidays? Do they exhibit a lack of sobriety during summer school vacations?) Ronabop 12:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of a minimum duration at least for self-noms. If it did nothing else, it would spare some naive editors who nominate themselves two weeks after arriving the humiliation of a pile-on. AnnH ^(talk) 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a minimum of 30 votes is a good idea, perhaps leaving a little leeway for discretion of bureaucrats. I do have in mind two admins I trust and respect who both got in with fewer than thirty, and who have, in my view, been responsible and non-abusive administrators. However, SlimVirgin has pointed out that more people have been voting in recent months, and I am sure they would both have got more votes if these RfAs had been more recent, and also if they had made themselves better known to the community beforehand, which maybe they should have done. AnnH ^(talk) 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to address some points raised above:

A low number of support votes does not necessarily mean a low amount of community interaction. Some editors work primarily in areas where most RfA participants do not participate. Jimbo noted we are strong in some areas, weak in others. Should we stop a promotion of someone who works very diligently in a weak area where most of us don't go simply because they received 27 support votes instead of 30? (and I echo CBD's 10:43 28 December comment on this)
Of the last 270 successful RfAs, 35% of them had <30 votes. Over the last 3 months of 151 successful RfAs, 31% had <30 votes (and another 4% had exactly 30). In the last 30 days of successful nominations, 39% had <30 votes (and another 7% had exactly 30).
SlimVirgin's noted a problem with 2 <30 vote admins. Assuming those were in the last 30 days, we're talking about 2 of 24 RfAs with less than 30 votes. So, to deal with 2 problem admins we should have prevented 10 times as many people from becoming admins?
There are already structures in place for handling admins that are routinely in error. I recommend taking advantage of them.
"30" is arbitrary and not scalable. What do we do in 3 months if there are more people voting on RfAs? Raise it to 35?
The assertion has been made that the number of votes at RfA has increased. This is false. The average # of votes on RfAs from July 1st forward has remained essentially static. If anyone wants to see a graph of this, I'll be happy to produce it. The # of RfAs has significantly increased, but the number of votes has remained more or less static.

I believe the proposal to have 30 support votes to weed out bad admins is dramatically in error and misses the point. There are no real feedback mechanisms for admin behavior. Until such time as there is, any attempt to place restrictions on RfA will miss the mark; there's no way to judge if it is effective or not, or to even forecast a proposed "solution"'s viability. --Durin 16:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed. When you set a minimum number of votes just to weed out jerks, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage. How's a very good candidate going to feel about losing when that person had just 28 or 29 votes instead of 30? That person probably would have been a good admin, but because of strict new rules, he was left in the dust. That's why I disagree with Jayjg and others who propose severe numerical restrictions. You can't just put a minimum-vote limit and have the problem magically go away. It just doesn't work that way. It's more complicated than that. That's why the extra time must be taken to scrutinize a nominee's character. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus or Supermajority? (Archive 45)

There is talk on Wikipedia:Consensus concerning the statement that certain Wikiprocesses, in particular WP:RFA and WP:AFD, no longer work on the principle of Consensus, but instead on the principle of Wikipedia:Supermajority, which seems to imply a more-or-less strict numerical limit. I would appreciate it if some bureaucrats would weigh in on the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Consensus to comment on this. R adiant _>|< 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I can answer right here, if that's okay (if you want me to talk on the other page, tell me). RFA certainly seems to be heading towards supermajority, but that is not how we want it to end up. Indeed, I have talked with three other bureaucrats regarding this very manner and we're not exactly liking how it's heading.

Do you want a very to-the-point take on it, from my perspective? RFA is an effing bloodbath. I hate watching RFA because it seems that some people are more concerned about pushing an agenda more than supporting or opposing a candidate based on suitibility as admin. Back when I was up for adminship in June, I had 45 support votes to 4 oppose votes. I had 2500 edits (which was a huge amount) and less than three months as an editor on Wikipedia. Now look at me: I'm one of the 22 bureaucrats. However, if I had my RFA now instead of back in June, I would not have passed. Why? Not because I'm incompetant, but because enough people rubber-stamp RFA instead of taking the friggin time to investigate a candidate. RFA has become way too impersonal. Too many people are creating this idea that unless you're "part of the cabal" (which, honestly guys, doesn't fucking exist, so knock it off), you're not in. That's bull.

I believe it's best to apply for adminship when you have 4,500 edits or so. When you have 20,000+ (as myself) it becomes a waste of time. You've had too much exposure, there are numerous trolls who hate you, and there are Bcrats always willing to lend them a helping hand. --Ghirla | talk 15:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Read my lips/keystrokes: RFA is NOT a beauty contest. RFA is NOT a popularity contest. RFA is the place to determine if some administrative and maintanance tools can be given to someone without them destroying the place. People are making becoming an administrator too much of a big deal. As of this post, we have 791 administrators. Do you honestly think that becoming an admin is really that glorious? Of course it isn't. Stop treating it like it's some sort of trophy that only the few elite should get a hold of.

Now, what does all of this have to do with concensus? Simple: the bureaucrats, based upon what the community of voters voices, have the final say when it comes to pushing the "promote" button. The reason why you elected us to BE bureaucrats in the first place was because you trusted our judgement enough to hand out the keys based upon what the community says. I understand that people have been treating RFA like a game of numbers. Well, it was never intended to be that way, and as such I hope to see that changed.

Too much drama. Way too much drama. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody say AMEN. -Zero^Talk 15:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak is right. We decide based on consensus, not on voting, and what that consensus is depends on the reasons people give to justify their votes - especially the oppose votes. If there are 30% oppose votes citing bogus reasons, the candidate should be promoted. If there are 20% oppose votes citing significant abuse of procedures, then the candidate should not be promoted. We put our trust in the bureaucrats to make these judgments. David | Talk 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --Ghirla | talk 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with all of this. In the end it's consensus or supermajority as the bureaucrats say (that is, of course, barring policy change brought about by the community). — Ilyan e p (Talk) 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this back up (Archive 46)

With the closing of CS,CWEM's RFA, closing bureaucrat Cecropia noted "no consensus" (77% support over oppose). BorgHunter and myself referenced Luigi30's third RFA, which passed (72% support over oppose). Cecropia then said that Luigi30's promotion "was a clear error by a new Bcrat". I'm sorry for bringing this back up, but what EXACTLY was this error~~, and why has Luigi30 then retained his powers? Because it would be bad faith to revoke them~~? NSL E _(T+C) 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Has Luigi30 done something to show he deserves his powers to be removed? If not, does it really matter now? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if he hasn't, I'd like to know exactly what error was made. NSL E _(T+C) 03:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems the error was a mistake in determining our meaning of "consensus." Obviously, this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time, so it follows that we take it on a case-by-case basis. Since nothing seems to have come out of this case, the only time we should ever really worry about it is if the mistake is made in the future. JHMM13 (T | C)

04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The error was brought about in two steps, as these thigs often do. One Bcrat was "fixing up" the instructions to promote on the Bcrat page. In so doing, he erroneously stated the usual area of discretion was 70% to 80%. The low number should have been 75%. This was the first mistake. The second was when another, new, bureaucrat probably depended on this to promote Luigi at 72%+. You can see the harm of an innocent error in that Luigi is now being quoted as a precedent. I see no reason to reverse it at this point since (AFAIK) there was no objection made at the time and the damage done by a fight to try to reverse the decision would probably be more harmful than letting stand, absent an indeication that Luigi was abusing admin powers. -- Cecropia 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. NSL E _(T+C) 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There were a significant amount of neutral votes as well, and, if included with the other votes, brings the total tally to 173. While the support:oppose ratio was 77%, the support:total ratio was only 68%. I'm not sure if that had any bearing in Cecropia's decision, though. --tomf688^{talk} 04:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there was still a consensus to promote in this case due to the 77% support and the only reason anyone could give to oppose was agecountitis. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe (Archive 48)

For what appears to me to be the first time ever, we managed to promote an admin who was clearly unsuitable for the task, and who was then demoted by the AC mere months later. I am struck by the similarities between the RFA objections and the AC decision findings. I note that this is a clear example that the AC is doing its job, which is a good thing. I also note that this is a rare enough occurrence that it doesn't necessarily indicate a need for process change. All the same, I thought I'd bring it up here so that we could gain whatever insights we might from it regarding the adminship process. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify a bit more...? I don't quite understand your query. -Zero^Talk 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

An immediate point that comes to notice is that FFF was promoted on just 73%, well below the usual thresholding and noticeably outside the region commonly considered to be discretionary. I wonder did this happen because the notvotes after the deadline were discounted? If that's the case, we need to be crystal clear than anyone who expresses an opinion is entitled to have that opinion counted. -Splash^talk 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe I brought this point up in linuxbeak's rfa refomation project - rfa is not an "vote". The voters should always provide an reason for their stance in an matter. Perhaps votes lacking any explanation or thesis should be discounted. -Zero^Talk 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Full agreement here, but those oppose votes had rationales, while on the contrary, most of the support votes had none. I say that "votes" after the deadline should be counted; if the 'crats don't close on time, it's their fault, not the "voters'" fault. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"but those oppose votes had rationales, while on the contrary, most of the support votes had none." - See Raul's 10th law of wikipedia for the reason why this is so. Raul654 06:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that would leave 'Frappe and most RfAs with unanimous opposition. -Splash^talk 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, I think it's pointless to require justifications for support votes; we already know the justification for most support votes. If a user has been editing decently for a sufficient period of time and contributed enough to the encyclopedia to understand policy and to give people a chance to decide that they're not gibbering lunatics, then that's enough to support them as an admin. I'm not sure what would be gained by requiring people to essentially say that over and over... Certainly, there are cases where a support voter could cite a user's excellent work at such-and-such an article or in resolving such-and-such a dispute or whatever, or places where they might want to use their support vote to comment on issues that might lead other people to oppose, but those things seem to be the exception and not the rule; in general, we don't need specific reasons to make someone an admin. The basic idea, after all, is to give adminship to as many (sane) people as possible. --Aquillion 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not usually one for number crunching, but counting just pre-deadline comments it seems it was 77.5%. It seems kind of strange to say it (since 80% is after all, an arbitrary figure, right?) but this seems to strongly indicate that RfA works if process is closely followed. --W.marsh 16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

His figures are based on 38/52 (support/total). This is correct if the intent is to gauge specifically the level of Support against the total entries. If you remove the three neutrals, it becomes 38/49 which results in the 77% support. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No they're not. He had 38 support and 14 oppose. As is always the case on any other time-limited process, everyone who gets in before the closure is listened to. -Splash^talk 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was explaining to Wmarsh why you were getting 73% and he was getting 77%. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Splash, while I understand and respect your views, I'm not sure that what you propose is the best answer. It sounds as if you're suggesting an 'eternal RfA'. At what point does an RfA actually close if post-close opinions are counted? Is it an hour after the close time? A day? Two days? Why isn't seven days long enough? Participation in the RfA process is a responsibility. There are 7 days allocated for the process, and it is the responsibility of those who contribute to, at some point during the week, add their entry. For them to demand to be heard after the period has expired shows a lack of respect for members of the project who are willing to abide by the widely published and openly viewable guidelines already established. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It closes when the 'crats close it. The RfA is supposed to end at a certain time, but if the 'crats don't close it then, it is their fault for not doing so, not the fault of those who added their opinions while the RfA was still open. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I mean that, if an RfA is closed slightly after the 7 day deadline, then anything that was posted until the close is fine (this is a statement of current practise, note). I in no way mean we keep going until there is a result, just that anything said until the closure is fine. -Splash^talk 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, the bcrats should still take the validness of the vote into consideration after this time period as to make sure no one plays the system. -Zero^Talk 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you measure the validness of a vote? How can expressing an opinion in good-faith ever be gaming the system? If the comment is in bad-faith, it's worthless whenever it is made. -Splash^talk 17:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not clear enough; I was referring to an lack of clarification at all:

invalid - Oppose/support-User:Bad faith

valid - Oppose/support, user likes to eat gravy. -User:Good faith

That's what I was trying to say, sorry for the confusion. -Zero^Talk 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. -Splash^talk 17:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this current practice? Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_32#Votes_after_closing seems to suggest otherwise; Uninvited Co. provides a couple reasons why votes after the deadline should not be counted. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

On the more substantive point, I think that the part of RfA reform that calls for a discussion prior to the poll is useful in such situations. I personally would normally oppose an RfA where the problem exhibited in the oppose section are found, but I had supported days before that came to light. Whether I returned to reconsider or not, I do not remember, but if I had, then certianly I'd have had to give the opposition very serious consideration. This kind of change is the exception rather than the rule as Uninvited Company observes, but it's a good example of the exception in action. -Splash^talk 17:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No question about it. Voting is good for only two things: 1. Seeing if any consensus exists (if it's close to unanimous, there is consensus); 2. Determining people's opinions prior to a discussion. Otherwise, discussion trumps it, anytime. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm not sure I see a problem here. I see a mistake, absolutely, but such mistakes have historically proven to be very rare, and no matter what solution we employ, mistakes will be made because we are all humans and we all err. I know I've done things on the wiki that I regret (although not many, thank God). The new system doesn't seem bad, but we can't go in pretending that we're never going to annoint a rouge admin if we just change systems, and if we do make a change it can't be for that reason. Lord Bob 18:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no problem. Might have not even been a mistake in promoting Freestylefrappe; as one can't always guess what kind of admin a person may turn out based on user comments. The current system works just fine, at least as well as it can work in an imperfect world. :) New complicated rules would just be a burden, and I doubt any benefits they may provide. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but DFA will likely reduce errors (just read the concept and you should understand why). We can't be perfect, but we should strive for it. And DFA isn't complicated; just discuss the nominee for a few days, and then after the discussion, "vote". Johnleemk | Talk 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe's promotion was right on the borderline, and I guess that shows why some of these folks get so many oppose votes. However, this and other cases show that perhaps the Arbcom is more likely to desysop a rogue admin. If that's true, I'd say the RfA process doesn't need too much of an overhaul, since part of the reason we were looking into it is because it was nearly impossible to get anyone desysopped. I wouldn't mind people asking additional questions, of course ;-), but I don't think RfA needs too much of an overhaul now that the Arbcom no longr sees desysopping as a taboo remedy. --D e ath phoenix 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might not be that "ArbCom" no longer sees it that way, it may be that the community selected new Arbiters that always saw it that way. New blood type of thing. Changing of the guard. You get the point. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the section header of this enthralling conversation is cited as "Freestylefrappe", does this mean that the fellow users here believe FF was an unsuitible admistrator..? -Zero^Talk 06:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just look at the evidence section of the ArbCom case against him. He protected his own talk page. I know we can't know how a user will use the admin tools until they have them, but this behaviour is everything I try to avoid when supporting an admin candidate, and it is indeed comforting to know that ArbCom will deal with bad admins to the same extent they deal with bad users. Raven4x4x 09:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators in touch with the current RfA standards?

I think how the Arbitrators think about their requiring a desysopped user to reapply is worth considering. You can get an idea of what they expect by reading this discussion. What they do impacts how we act here. I wonder how aware some of the arbitrators are about the current RfA situation. The standards for candidates expected by "voters" are quite different from those a year or two ago. NoSeptember ^talk 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pretending to speak on the arbcom's behalf here, but I think anyone as active and as experienced as they are should be well aware that any election is a popularity contest, and not judging on the merits. Generally people decide whether to support or oppose first, and then find reasons to support their decision. Johnleemk | Talk 11:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, Wikipedia is a big place, you can't stay current in all areas. In the section I linked above, the comments of Morven, Mindspillage and Sam Korn make me wonder how often they read the RfAs that are currently up for review. Do they know how many votes are cast on the issue of edit summaries for example? Btw, your comment in that discussion shows that you do know what is going on here, not surprising since we see you here often anyway. But what is this about a popularity contest - are you saying the ArbCom is ruling that if you are popular you don't get punished but if you are unpopular you do get punished? That would be an odd way to dish out punishments ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 11:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think this is a problem with the arbitration committee, do you? Kim Bruning 12:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure they are fully aware of the likely low RfA success rate of a desysopped-by-ArbCom user. I have no problem with desysoppings by them if they know the practical effect of it will be semi-permanent (It took Guanaco 4 tries and over a year to become an admin again). Being an admin is a privilege, so a bad admin being desysopped is a good thing. But if they intend a desysop to be only a temporary measure, before the community rushes to re-admin someone, then they may be deceiving themselves. And I do think ArbCom is doing a good job in general. NoSeptember ^talk 12:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom is aware that a desysopped user may not be given the mop back soon. And I don't think they necessarily mean things as a "temporary measure".

I strongly disagree with parts of the comment "any election is a popularity contest, and not judging on the merits. Generally people decide whether to support or oppose first, and then find reasons to support their decision." If you are implying that worthy people fail to get elected, but people who would be bad administrators but are "popular" do get elected, then I will ask for evidence. And implying that voters are naive enough to not reconsider their decisions/biases based existing information about candidates is just naive. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, there's some pretty silly admins out there at the moment, and there's also some very cool folks who failed. Right now I'm probably being stalked to bits though, so it'd be wiser for me not to name names. Ugh... how's that for a useless comment... maybe mail me or something. Kim Bruning 18:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Being a silly admin is fine, as long as the tools don't get abused. :) As far as cool people failing to get elected, well... one could try again. If plenty of people think a given person is cool, I guess they will vote for him/her... :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said this is necessarily a bad thing; most of the time, the set of popular editors coincides with the set of people who should be admins (IMO). There are occasional cases where elections fail, though (note: I was speaking in general about Wikipedia elections, not just RfA). This is especially true with elections that have higher standards than RfA, i.e. the arbcom elections (where people like JamesF have never made the cut without a little help from Jimbo). And if I really believed people won't change their minds, why would I support DFA, which is predicated on the presumption (which, from my experience, is correct) that most editors are capable of weighing the material evidence and then deciding? I'm just stating what appears to be a fact, IMO -- people decide whether they like/know X, and only then start weighing the evidence. (I really need to learn precision in the art of making remarks, because my original comment should read "any election is first and foremost a popularity contest".) Johnleemk | Talk 02:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fully aware of the situation here; I do follow this page. (Note that no one is required to reapply: they are simply allowed to; also note that I expressed some misgivings about the process on the vote page.) And yet—what else can we do when a case is about misuse of sysop powers? The idea of a requests for deadminship page continually gets shot down with the idea that it would only be a troll magnet and that good sysops who get on the bad side of bad users will get unfairly shot down, and where it has been shown that an admin has misused powers the matter can be taken to arbcom. Well, it was. If you don't like that it's too much of a popularity contest (and I don't, myself), make strong arguments against it. Have talks (not accusations, just talks) with people you think are harming the process, especially if they're your friends.

I would strongly urge that people would consider their decisions to accept or reject a re-request without holding the arbcom decision against them. That is, suppose the person asking for adminship again had done exactly the same admin actions, but hadn't been taken to arbcom: what would you think about that person retaining admin status? I'll repeat this as a comment on the RfAs themselves, should they choose to reapply. (Unless someone rebuts it well enough.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we actually have evidence that it's happening like this? That is, can someone point to a re-adminship application that is clearly being shot down because of 'bad users' the candidate offended while being a good admin? Granted, de-adminship is so rare that there aren't very many examples to look at, period, but before we have all this discussion over it we should at least check whether it's really a problem or not. --Aquillion 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

DFA Discussion (Archive 48)

The link got swept away during archiving. Please see WP:DFA do not let discussion die down. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Still seems to me that there's no point in fixing what's not broken. Where's the evidence that we're generally either producing bad admins or rejecting obviously qualified candidates? —Cleared as filed. 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't name any immediate cases, but Freestylefrappe (see above) comes to mind -- would all the people that supported him have continued supporting had they known the incidents mentioned by the opposers? I also think the "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" RfA shouldn't have failed, but I may be biased, since I supported (I think). Johnleemk | Talk 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly in the user community there is some angst about the current set of admins. While there have been accusations that some such users are socks and/or trolls, etc., I think it is irresponsible and naive to say that all such users are. Immediately coming to mind are User:Splash, User:Tony Sidaway, and User:MarkSweep. I'm not really going to comment on their actions, but clearly there is presently a feeling in the community at large that the admin community is broken, and there should be a more stringent or effective process at culling the bad ones (yes, FSF comes to mind) before they get into a position where the harm cannot be reversed. aa v ^ 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure - but that doesn't indicate a need to change the process of gaining adminship - it's more a call for there to be a way to desysop people. If any process change is necessary, it's the addition of a RfD (Requests for de-adminship). But suggestion of the possibility of that sort of process seems to be taboo. Grutness...wha? 04:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Immediately coming to mind are User:Splash, User:Tony Sidaway, and User:MarkSweep. Calling names is a poor way of making a point. Please abstain from that in the future. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[6] ... aa:talk 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Johnleemk's comments above, I'd look at those cases as exceptions; considering the number of editors who go through the RfA process, a few failures once in a while is not unacceptable, and I'm not sure I see how CSCWEM's nomination would have been helped by the new proposed system. As far as User:Avriette's charge that current admins are being too bold with their admin powers, I note that a look back shows that two of the three admins named above breezed through their RfAs with almost no opposition, so this problem (if it exists) isn't a problem for RfA reform, it's a matter of coming up with some way to take care of problem admins. And we already have that in the form of arbitration. So again, what problem are we fixing here? —Cleared as filed. 05:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a very valid point that I hadn't considered. I gather this has been brought up before? ... aa:talk 18:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If DFA can help seal all or most exceptions, all the better. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But why do you expect it to seal those exceptions? What was it about the FSF RfA or the CSCWEM RfA that the new proposal would change? —Cleared as filed. 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See above: "Freestylefrappe (see above) comes to mind -- would all the people that supported him have continued supporting had they known the incidents mentioned by the opposers?" If even one rogue sysop is never admined because of DFA, we'll already have saved ourselves the trouble of one RfAr and a bunch of angry posts on WP:AN, IRC, and the mailing list. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreement with Cleared as filed. ANY system we design will result in some people becoming admins that in retrospect probably should not have become admins. This can't be avoided. There is no 'perfect' system. Citing less than five 'problem' admins and asserting a (unsupported) "feeling" by the community that the admin community is broken is not illuminating of the problem. In fact, I think it rather shows that RfA is working quite well, if only a small handful of admins can be identified as being "problem" admins. --Durin 13:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No process is perfect. We promoted 389 admins in 2005 (source), three of those have been desysopped with restoration by RfA required (Freestylefrappe, Carnildo and Karmafist). You won't get much better than less than 1%. NoSeptember ^talk 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Those successful at under 80%

I read that the percentage supporting the above mentioned Admin was lower than usual. If that is the case, you have your problem (and maybe your solution.) Does anyone have the stats on the number of admin taken with lower percentages. It's logical that over time more of these admin would be problematic. Sorry if this offends the discuss don't vote folks. : ) FloNight ^talk 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a list of RfAs since June 23, 2005 that had less than 80% raw vote support and passed. The numbers are support/(support+oppose). Neutral votes have not been taken into account.

Nightstallion 79.7%

BorgHunter 79.3%

Aaron Brenneman(2nd) 78.6%

Lucky 6.9(4th) 78.3%

Nandesuka 78.2%

The Land(2nd) 77.8%

Alkivar(3rd) 77.5%

Extreme Unction 77.2%

Ramallite 77.1%

EvanProdromou 76.5%

Hedley(2nd) 75.8%

Johann Wolfgang 75.5%

Freestylefrappe(2nd) 74.5%

Luigi30(3rd) 72.4%

--Durin 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A great list Durin. I hope you don't mind, I added the bit about 2nd, 3rd and 4th attempts to your list, since that seems to be a factor too. NoSeptember ^talk 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For comparison, the other two mentioned were Carnildo (RfA, 40 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral, 90.9%) and Karmafist (RfA, 53 support, 2 oppose, 96.4%). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

2 out of ??? for 80% or more since June 23, 2005
1 out of 14 for less 80% since since June 23,2005

Looks like a indicator to me. FloNight ^talk 20:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC) What was the number Admin given since June 23 2005? (minus 14 less than 80%)FloNight ^talk 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

From the same data: 531 RfAs since June 23, 2005 have completed. 342 were successful (64.4%). --Durin 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that we're also confusing the acute problems (like Splash ;P you know) with the chronic ones, and trying to apply one solution to both of those problems. We're also using one metric to measure both of these.

We're never going to detect every potential acute problem admin early. That will only be solved by either "trial periods" which add a huge load and wastes time for the >95% that will pass or request for dead-minning/reconfirmation. I see Durin's numbers as supporting this: low rate, poor entry metric. This isn't the problem this is intended to address.
The chronic problems of "worthy" candidates missing out and "unready" candidates getting promoted is harder to measure. In fact, I don't see any way to mesure the former. For the latter, I've proposed looking at a count of how often admin actions are reversed as a way to get a handle on the second. This is what this is meant to improve.

The current DfA proposal is a very slight tweak on the current system. It amounts to making the nomination a collaborative effort, while retaining every other aspect: the voting, the way it's closed, everything. The potential for harm is very low, and even if it does nothing but make people feel that the system is better it will have provided someincremental improvement.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that we ought to change a system that is, by all evidence, working very well, just because it might make some people feel that we've improved even though we haven't. Sure, the risk is low, but why take even a low risk just for its own sake? Why do we have this solution in search of a problem if so many people supposedly think RfA is broken? Why can't anyone pinpoint exactly what it is that we need to fix? —Cleared as filed. 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here's one case I've had in mind for quite some time. Look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Right until the RfA closed, there was a lot of discussion on the RfA about Lulu, and quite a bit of vote-changing here and there because of this discussion. Most RfA voters (well, at least me) don't look back at RfAs we've voted on, so for all we know, Lulu could have gained (or lost) more support votes if DfA (where all that discussion occurs before voting) was in use. Lulu even lost a few votes because he "campaigned" on people's user talk pages when he was just trying to point out new developments in the discussion or show why the reasoning for opposing could be faulty. All this could have been averted under DfA. Johnleemk | Talk 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one. ...of >500. Single point failures is not enough to condemn RfA in my opinion. Also keep in mind that RfA is not a one time shot; people are welcome to reapply at a later date. Lulu can reapply. --Durin 14:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is condemning RfA. DfA is an extension of RfA, and is largely based on it. It only splits it into two sections; one for discussion, and one for voting. You just discuss for a few days, and then go on to vote. Just like RfA, except you're a lot less likely to need to change your vote. And this isn't a single point failure -- this is just one case I can think of. My failed RfB might also be a good example. And I've already brought up Freestylefrappe. If I had the time to dig through the archives, I could find more. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My arguments against the DfA proposal as it now stands are on the discussion page for it. DfA might be a great idea, and it might not. The main problem I have is the manner of the genesis of the idea. It's a blind shot into the dark, and just as likely to cause harm as not. --Durin 14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I stated my own opinion on DfA sometime ago on that page also (concur with Durin). This discussion can't go forver, seems quite a bit of people are already familiar with what is going on and made up their minds. There's got to be some kind of poll to gauge how community feels about adopting or not this new DfA thing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We could do a poll, but the choice of trying DfA out for a trial run should be an option. We can continue this theoretical debate forever without conclusion. If we had a dozen real DfAs, then we could compare the two methods and decide on the results. NoSeptember ^talk 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

de-indentingJohnleemk has used an example, which, imo, does not still establish the need for DFA. Also, it is a dangerous idea. As the adage goes, "A man who doesn't change his mind has no mind at all." What DFA assumes is that after discussion, voting would take place. What if, after the discussion period, I find something in the candidate's history that is detrimental for his becoming an admin. The current rfa is much better in the sense that some rfas can swing from one end to another with availability of new evidence. DFA does not provide for that and unless discussion takes place, in several situations, it is difficult to even establish that a particular behavior is egregious. Also, a community gets the leaders it deserves. People would and should change their votes as it happens now, with the availability of new evidence and discussion of that evidence. If the concern is that people change votes, I am sorry, it is healthy for the process. If the concern is that people do not change votes with availability of new evidence, I cannot see how DFA would solve the problem, because new evidence can be available even after the discussion period is over. There may be some flaws and fads with the rfa system but we can easily live with these. --Gurubrahma 17:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We use common sense. The point is RfA will reduce such vote-switching because many people who would have switched their vote won't need to — by having seen most/all of the evidence, their mind can change several times without requiring constant flip-flopping and constantly keeping up with the discussion. If suddenly some new point of evidence to oppose comes up, then it should be perfectly fine for someone ('crats? They don't have enough work as it is ;-)) to notify every voter on their talk that something has come up. Since most discussion (and thus most of the muckraking) should have already been completed, such incidents should be uncommon. Your argument is predicated on the misconception that DfA is about reducing how much people change their minds. It's not. It's meant to encourage people to change their minds by having all the evidence neatly compiled prior to voting, so they don't need to flip back and forth between support/oppose/neutral. Johnleemk | Talk 18:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay, and my decision (Archive 52)

I think I'll leave a comment here, since I imagine my decision may provoke discussion. I realized I'd been absent in my role of bureaucrat for far too long -- the discussion following Cecropia and Francs2000's resignations put very much in my mind the fact that I've been neglecting my responsibilities. I came here and saw that the time had come for Master Jay's nomination to close. I spent some time reading through all of the comments and considering carefully what I thought the community was expressing, and decided that a consensus had emerged in the responses. I recognize with respect the objections of those who opposed Master Jay, but felt that the nomination had succeeded, and that it was my job (too long neglected, as I said) to make these difficult decisions. Either I'm good at making such judgments (and can be trusted to do so), or I can't. If I can't, I should clearly resign so that a better community representative can promote the will of our community--if I can, then I thought shying away (out of a desire to do uncontroversial promotions only) was simply a further failure to do the job I signed up for months ago.

If you take issue with what I did, I'm very open to your comments, and as noted above, if the community clearly feels that I'm not as good a judge of its will as I hope and strive to be, I will step down without hesitation. I have no desire to rock any boats, and am merely, at long last, trying to get back to work assisting this project in whatever limited capacity I'm capable of. All my best to you all, Jwrosenzweig 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you made the right decision. It was 77% to promote and despite the fact that there were good reasons to oppose many of the people were very reluctant to oppose and at least one should probably have been discounted off the bat to begin with as yet another disruptive me to vote so I think you definitely made the right choice to promote. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support your decision; you have worked on the encyclopedia a long time, and your judgements fit the situation. Clearly Francs and Crecopia will be missed, and you are stepping up. --Ancheta Wis 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for stepping back into this difficlt role and putting yourself in the firing line - which so few bureaucrats seem prepared to do. I think the promotion was fine but, in response to the request for feedback, it may have been a good idea to extend the vote a little longer as the numbers were still in the gray area and there had been a lot of recent voting activity (at a quick count, 10 new/changed votes in the final 5 hours). Not a major concern though, plus I'm very happy to see Jay promoted :) Cheers TigerShark 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest feedback--the idea of an extension is certainly a tool available to bureaucrats, and one I have given some encouragement to in the past. My decision not to use it in this case was based on several considerations--although (as you rightly note) votes were continuing to be added a few at a time, the overall percentage had hovered in the vicinity of 75% for at least the final day of the candidacy. It seemed to me that, rather than indicating a trend which it might be fruitful to see continue, the voting pattern suggested that the current state of affairs was likely to be the status quo. I have grown hesitant to extend votes over time, as it seems to me that 1 or 2 day extensions can become battlegrounds where both "sides" recruit votes, and situations become more tense and confused, not less. As a result of this thinking (which I admit may well not be shared by other bureaucrats), I find myself leaning away from extensions out of a desire to avoid putting the intensity of a spotlight on a "make or break" day of voting. Finally, the number of votes was high enough that the odds were low that another 10-12 votes would swing the total decisively into the mid 80s or the high 60s, and I consider anything in the 70-80 zone to be a matter of bureaucrat discretion (with the pressure against promotion intensifying as you reach 70). I give this lengthy explanation because I think bureaucrat decision-making ought to be relatively transparent, and because if any of the assumptions or guidelines by which I travel are out of step with the community, I hope to have that brought to my attention sooner rather than later. I hope they provide some insight as to why I did not opt for an extension in this case (and we shall see if it proved a wise decision). Jwrosenzweig 06:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You mention a 70 to 80 range. I think the current consensus is a 75 to 80 range. Aside from Luigi30 and Freestylefrappe, I can't think of anyone who has been promoted with under 75% in the past 8 months. NoSeptember ^talk 06:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--I'll definitely keep that in mind, as the voting standard seems to have gone up slightly since I was last active (however briefly) in promoting users. I'll go have a look at the two exceptions you noted to get a sense of when to dip below 75. Jwrosenzweig 06:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Luigi30's promotion is regarded as a new bureaucrat's mistake. Here is the <80% list from Durin (a few more have occurred in the past 2 months). NoSeptember ^talk 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the extending of the review period. Absent a specific reason to extend, the RfA should be closed. Just being in the borderline area of pass/fail is not a good reason to postpone a decision, and it happens all the time. I'd hate to see a precedent established for continual postponements. NoSeptember ^talk 06:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the reluctance to extend on the part of the bureaucrats. If people are still weighing in, and if RfA is not a straight 'vote', then it makes sense to extend if there's still a pendulum/momentum in effect that could affect the outcome:

The nomination is hovering +/-ε around the 80/75/77.5% mark;
The nomination is on a steady rise toward passing, and has continued to do so in recent hours!
The nomination is on a steady decline away from passing (this may be more touchy), as above.

Anything else would seem to increase the trend toward voting, and move things away from a caerful and thorough deliberation of the candidate. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is that you are back, doing the job, and willing to make considered judgements. If you feel any need to review current community standards for bureaucrat decisions, read the last few successful RfBs and the archives of this page, but I think you are doing fine so far. NoSeptember ^talk 06:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: I did some reviewing before my promotion, but I will certainly continue to do so, and more information about recent disputes can only serve to help me in making appropriate decisions. Jwrosenzweig 06:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh em gee! How dare you actually do a job some people don't seem to want to do!! On top of that, one you were even chosen to do. Just kidding... It seems okay. But then again, we are not BCrats, so what do we know? ;-) Keep up the good work, Jwrosenzwig. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With the two exceptions, it should be noted that while Luigi's been okay, Freestylefrappe was desysopped after having that arbcom case against him. While my analysis is that of a non-bureaucrat, I think some of the complaints about him as an admin were the very factors that were mentioned against him with many of the oppose votes in his last RfA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you and NoSeptember. I'd say it's become fairly clear to me from your comments and some digging in the archives that any promotion below 75% is treading on very dangerous ground--I won't go there anytime soon, myself. I'd say this doesn't change my position on the promotion I made today, but it certainly is good to know that the community's range has narrowed (though I do see some Wikipedians still support the idea of a 70-80% range, or did in late 2005). Jwrosenzweig 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept 75% because I see widespread support for it, and the rarity of anyone passing below 75% reinforces that. I could live with a lower standard than 75% (and the 90% for bureaucrat promotions), but I don't see much support for it from experienced users. The fact that someone who fails their current RfA can reapply shortly seems a fair reason for keeping the 75% barrier, since it means they are only delayed in getting adminship typically. There is a lot of fear of promoting rogue admins (which I don't share so much now that ArbCom is more active in desysopping) that motivates many to keep very high standards IMO. NoSeptember ^talk 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I respect your decision and support it, even though I opposed, as Master Jay has good qualities. Tyrenius 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you took on a difficult and possibly contentious decision in this case and am impressed by the thoughtfulness shown. (I've weighed in in the past as not being too keen on extensions in the general case (technical issues not withstanding), so won't repeat that bit) Further, I won't say "and I wish other 'crats were like that" because they are. It's a little funny to remark on one decision in this fashion I guess, but in the final analysis, this is what the community chose you 'crats to do, and you're all doing fine at it, please keep doing it. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Glad you took it on, and glad you arent shying away from judgement calls (which is basically why we need you guys!). And a good call it was. Cheers, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 08:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Threshold for adminship (Archive 53)

I'm a bit surprised that a simple majority among self-selecting voters is enough for adminship. I realize that a bureaucrat can exercise discretion in the event that the vote results were questionable in some way, but since this is a subjective call we should assume that a simple majority is all that is usually necessary for adminship.

I would like to see a higher number of Support than Oppose votes required for a successful nomination, maybe a two-thirds majority? --Saforrest 17:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? The threshold is generally around 80% support, 70-75% at the very lowest. --W.marsh 17:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Who informed you it was a simple majority? Johnleemk | Talk 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The 70-75% [oopps. corrected and noted underneath. Redux 17:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)] is only in particular conditions. The safe pass is only at 80%. That's a higher percentage of support than one needs to become Pope (that's "just" 75% of the votes in the conclave). Can't get much more selective than this. Redux 17:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. What 70-75%?? Sorry about that. The window for bureaucrat discretion in 75-80%. A 74% support means fail. My mind must be going... Redux 17:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship: "it is unusual for those below 75% to succeed, but all cases are weighed on their merits". Of course the whole thing is rather murky in my opinion. --W.marsh 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The GRFA is not policy, and a Bureaucrat can only act in accordance with the clear community consensus, which right now is rather specific that below 75% is just too low to promote. Of course, that's about the actual consensus. It is completely possible that a RfA gets so complicated that there may be an apparent consensus that is below 75%, but once all the problems get pealed off, we realize that the legitimate community consensus to promote is actually sufficient. Naturally, that level of disturbance is a lot rarer, and normally a "complicated" RfA will have consensus just under the necessary 80%. A Bureacrat is allowed a degree of discretion exactly so that this can be compensated. The observation in the GRFA is in the sense of "it's not just about counting votes; the whole thing needs to be analyzed before any decision can be made." Redux 18:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though the standard threshold is >80% = immediate pass; 75-80% = possibly controversial and up to discretionl <75% = immediate fail there are plenty of exceptions both ways and it should be remembered that RFA isn't run off absolute numbers, it's run off consensus, although I think the lowest below the 75% mark that passed was 72 or 73 percent and that was extremely controversial. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but my point was that under the current set of standards 74% and under technically doesn't "mean fail" - that's not codified into policy anywhere. People have been promoted with under 74% support, so it's not a hard limit. --W.marsh 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict: answer to Pegasus):That's what I was saying, in other words. Although there aren't that many cases of promotion with consensus under 75%. And yes, the last time it happened it was in the aftermath of someone [mistakenly] editing the instructions for Bureaucrats, and involving a recently-promoted (then) Bcrat. It was problematic exactly because that time around the consensus was indeed below even 75% (there were no huge controversies in the RfA throwing off consensus). But someone had changed the instructions to read that a consensus as low as 70% was enough for promotion on Bureaucrat discretion (which does not mean that the Bureaucrat gets to pick and choose unilateraly who gets to be promoted if consensus is within that window; the Bureaucrat has to conduct an analysis of the situation in order to determine the actual, legitimate community feeling about the candidate).
Marsh, if the closing Bureaucrat cannot identify any odd circumstances that may be throwing consensus in the RfA, (s)he can't promote at 74%. The nature of Bureaucracy is action on community consensus, and as I said before, the clear community feeling these days is: 80% or greater means pass; 75%-80% means discretion, so that eventual problems can be compensated; under 75% means fail, unless a very unusual problem has appeared that has disturbed the RfA deeply and is creating an apparent consensus that is far below what the community actually feels about the candidate. But it would have to be something truly, amazingly exceptional. Redux 19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What I disagree with is the fact that even though consensus here is not hard coded and due to it's ever changing nature probably never will be it is becoming more and more of a faux hard rule. For example, many people here are saying that -75% should be failed barring hugely acceptional circumstances which I agree with for the most part, but the fact that bureacurats are too are being somewhat held to this rule with them being berated and even being asked to resign (as happened twice in recent history) if they dare go against what the mob thinks is just unacceptable. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But you need to understand that the very nature of the role played by Bureaucrats is to act only in accordance with community consensus, not only in promoting (or not), but also with respect to the inner workings of RfA. Bureacrats serve Wikipedia (that is, the community), not the other way around. If Bureaucrats could go about as they please, and make unilateral decisions as to how things will work, or who gets promoted and when, then there'd be no need for RfA, and people would simply petition to Bureaucrats for promotion (I'm "borrowing" this last sentence from Cecropia, btw, with alterations in wording). Redux 21:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Amgine (Archive 55)

This one closed with no consensus. It did numerically seem to be at the low end of the range but I have to say I was hoping this would have come out as a promote. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Amgine.27s_RfA_more_time_to_come_to_consensus. --Durin 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer, Durin. I retain my "hoping" sentiment but that's a very good read, lots of profound thoughtfulness there, and I think that my "hope" aside, they did the right thing... as usual. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  - He got nowhere near enough community support, so it was absolutely the right closure to my mind. If the Foundation want to give him the sysop bit anyway that's fine but as was commented on at WP:BN they can't expect our bureaucrats to fudge the closure of a debate for them. So, top marks there I think. --kingboyk 14:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    - "Nowhere near" ? We're talking about a few percentage points, certainly well less than 10%, of difference here. Top marks though, agreed. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      - 80% is a 4 to 1 ratio, 75% is a 3 to 1 ratio, 71% is less than a 2.5 to 1. That's a big difference. NoSeptember ^talk 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      - 71% with 33 opposes and 7 neutrals. I don't think that's anywhere near enough - but I'm not a beauraucrat (nor do I want to be one :)). --kingboyk 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
      - The RfA closed at 76-33-7. That's 69.7%. To get to 75%, there would have had to have been another 23 support votes without any additional oppose votes. That's quite a bit. --Durin 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
        Or a just a few opposes switched to supports somehow ("votes" do change... and changing one oppose to a support is a far larger impact than garnering another support.). But ya, the leverage effect as the percentage climbs does impose an increasingly steep barrier. Good points all... ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After my compromise suggestion and the other one that followed, the support percentage needed to be higher than normal not lower to show solid support for this alternative type of admin. It needed to be in the 80% range supporting a specific alternative. IMO, anything less would not show the type of community consensus needed for something out of the ordinary. --FloNight ^talk 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Echoing Flo somewhat, non-standard arrangements should face a stronger burdern of evidence to show consensus on them, not a weaker version. JoshuaZ 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus level/promotion threshold (Archive 55)

It seems that RfA is doing a good job at denying adminship to candidates that should not be promoted. Some worthy candidates are not promoted or not promoted at first try, see for example Amgine, AzaToth, Proto, Alex Bakharev, CSCWEM. All of which would have been promoted if we defined consensus to be somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 instead of 4/5. What effect would a lowering of the promotion threshold have? Kusma (討論) 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't mean much in terms of who would suceed, if nothing else it would just mean that we'd get more people who opposed because at one time in the distant past the person who's going up for admin used the color #FF00FF (a light shade of pink) in their signature. Pegasus1138|talk 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed an excellent reason to oppose. You'll be up for adminship in late June, right? Kusma (討論) 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're talking to someone who has failed two RfAs. :-) Kimchi.sg 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see the second one, just read the comment of David Gerard in the first one that he'd nominate after 90 days... Kusma (討論) 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Both due to my newness which won't be an issue next time around, on the topic of sig color I think that one time change (believe me I won't normally be using a hot pink sig) got the point across though even though I assume Kusma was being sarcastic about opposing due to the sig color but people seriously have opposed for similar reasons, including but not limited to; images in sigs that were removed long before the nom, signature style, userpage layout (non userbox issues), and whether a user uses substed templates when opposing or supporting someone or something during a poll. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To return some seriousness to this debate: I don't believe the number of silly opposers would go up by that much, unless somebody enforces that all votes must be accompanied by a "reason". (we'll get a lot of Oppose, not enough Help talk edits type of votes then). And even a slight increase would probably be offset by having one oppose not be worth four, but only 2.5 supports. Kusma (討論) 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No matter what the issues are with good candidates not being promoted, I'd rather not lower the bar on consensus amount specifically (and I'm being careful with my wording here cause I know this will come back to bite me). I'm afraid of bad candidates being promoted at 67% support (which is 1 oppose to every 2 supports, way too low). — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, that is the threshold on German wikipedia (of course (at least temporary) de-adminning is a lot easier there, too). My point is, though, that almost all candidates we have that fail with 70-80 percent are actually quite good. Kusma (討論) 02:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to see both an easier method of temp de-adminning and a lower adminship threshhold (in that order). Adminship should be no big deal. Fluorescent sigs, on the other hand... +sj + 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the German way ? Tintin (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The main idea is that there is a page where problems with admins can be noted, and people can then file a request for temporary desysopping (usually one or two weeks) which is then voted on. I am not certain about the exact voting procedure; it seems it used to be mostly done by admins, but is now open to all. The German Wikipedia has no ArbCom, though. Kusma (討論) 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I’ve been trying to think of a way to fix my sig so I can find my comments easier later. Maybe a nice BLINK ;). :) Dlohcierekim 13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What's this about opposing because of a pink sig? :-)--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think people should be desysopped for it. And for Chinese characters in sigs. Kusma (討論) 02:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG ROUGE ADMIN!!! Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to have greek characters even though my name is Russian. That count? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think anyone with a strange character in their sig should fail an RfA (or be deadminned). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to lowering the threshold for admins, that in spite of the fact that some votes are plain silly, Taxman's RfB nomination comes to mind. 75% is a good balance, and I feel that a person should get at least 3/4 of the votes to be considered trusted by the community.

Yes, some good people do not pass at the first/second attempt. But if such a person gets bitter/leaves the project because he/she feels he "deserved" to be promoted, that person was probably not commited enough to the project to start with. That said, if you failed, just wait a couple more of months and try again. Sensible enough to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kusma; Just for the record, of the five people you noted that were worthy to be promoted and were not, three of them went on to being promoted on later RfA nominations. AzaToth's RfA was ~7 weeks ago, and I would imagine that if he wants to try again he's probably waiting for a while, which is probably a good idea. Amgine's RfA just recently failed. There is nothing stopping a nominee from trying again. --Durin 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know all that. I am only trying to say that instead of saying "The whole process is a failure because XY was not made a sysop" we could look at small changes to the system, and a lower promotion threshold (or a wider range for bureaucrat discretion) would be one of the more obvious ways that the system can be tweaked instead of changing it completely. Kusma (討論) 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'm noting that lowering the threshold wouldn't make a difference in the five cases you cited; three of them went on to be promoted and the other two it's too early for them to have had another chance. --Durin 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point by looking at the results in the long run. RfA does get it wrong on the first try sometimes, but most worthy candidates that fail once do seem to get their sysop bit two or three months later. Which would mean that the only thing RfA is proven to do "wrong" is to delay some good candidates by a couple of months (and weed out some who have low patience and/or a low stress resistance). Consensus seems to be that this is worth it for being extra cautious, which I can agree with, although of course it is never nice to see your favorite candidate fail just barely. Kusma (討論) 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

a reason why the threshold is high

It all depends on how you look at the process. We have had earlier threads where the point was made that most of the problem admins who are eventually desysopped only got passed at the low end of the approval range. Perhaps we unconsciously accept the idea that it is better to temporarily deny 10 good candidates in order to avoid one bad candidate getting through. Usually the good candidates that fail can get through the next time as they have grown in experience and demonstrate an ability to not get into improper conflicts. Being rejected could be considered a test, to see if you can handle the rejection and continue to be a solid contributor. NoSeptember ^talk 13:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The reason it's probably not a good idea to lower the standard is that it is too hard to remove admins. If the arbcom showed less reticence to do that, it wouldn't be as big a deal to grant adminship. The admin accountability poll showed pretty strong support for the arbcom to remove adminship when necessary if I recall, but some people seem to think that's a big deal. - Taxman ^Talk 13:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning ArbCom and desysopping, I have had the idea that maybe desysopping could be done more frequently if it was not attached to RfA (requiring people to reapply here). BorgHunter and Ashibaka were temporarily desysopped and restored after a certain amount of time. Almost all involuntary desysoppings that require reapplication fail (the one that succeeded was a fourth attempt, more than a year later). A one, two or three month temporary desysopping would seem to be a reasonable middle ground between not desysopping and desysopping with required reapplication. I have written more about this at User:NoSeptember/Arbcom punishments. If we can make the desysopping process less draconian for ArbCom, they could potentially use it more, and we at RfA could start considering adminship less of a big deal again. NoSeptember ^talk 14:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think desysopping should be less difficult, as currently when you vote for an admin, it's all or nothing, so that if successful, this editor will be an admin for all time (with a few exceptions). So it boils down to damage limitation, weight the harm that might come from a bad admin, against the harm (or loss of benefit) from the lack of a good admin. Unfortunatetly one bad admin can do a lot of damage, so I believe that's why the standards are rising as we just can't risk it, even if that means we have to lose a few good ones as well. Regards, MartinRe 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On the balance of 'benefit to the wiki' it is better to have a few good candidates denied adminship than to have a few bad candidates given adminship. Keep the 'threshold' the same but introduce easier de-sysopping within (say) the first 3 months of adminship. This would maintain the integrity of the process but would encourage people who are unsure (there are a lot of 'not sure whether to trust you'-type votes on RFA) to support rather than oppose, because any bad admins could easily be ~~kicked out~~ removed from adminship, and this would result in more people receiving adminship without gaming the process to benefit people whose supporters believe their rejection was 'obviously wrong' Cynical 12:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus (Archive 57)

Is there a definition of 'reaching consensus' on an RfA? Does that require a minimum percentage of support votes, a supermajority? SCHZMO ✍ 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

>80% = pass

<75% = fail

>75% AND < 80% = bcrat's decision, based on strength of votes. If everyone voted weak oppose/strong support, the clear consensus is support. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's always left to the common sense and good taste of the closing bureaucrat. Typically less then 70% is a failure, more than 80% is a sure win, in between it varies. But this is not a hard and fast rule. --Stephan Schulz 21:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read what I said somewhere. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Deskana's is closer to what seems to be taken for granted. There was a recent 'crat candidate who said 70% to 80% as discretionary and he got hammered for it (does anyone recall who it was?). JoshuaZ 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely that was Essjay. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you find this information, and why isn't it in the article? I had thought all you needed was a majority. SCHZMO ✍ 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't remember where I read this, nor can I seem to find it anywhere. Shame. I'll keep looking. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

People make it up. It's actually supposed to be a consensus process, but people have been cowing the bureaucrats to turn it into a vote. Grr! Kim Bruning 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, people don't make it up. People don't write it down anywhere (and if they do it doesn't stick) because some would like to uphold the impression that RfA is not a vote, even though it is (or is as close to it to make little difference in practice). And it's easier to be delusional about a policy page than about people's minds. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In what article? If you look on the RfA page it mentions that range explicitly. A little wider range would make the process less of a vote, but 75-80% seems to be what's been decided. If I recall, Cecropia was the first to state the number, though they would go below 75% for some promotions. It didn't happen often though. Solidifying at 75% seems to have happened later. - Taxman ^Talk 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It was previously stated in the "Instructions for sysoping someone" section of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats but was removed by Uninvited Company as instruction creep. It remains the standard used in practice. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

For those interested: This is not where I first read it, but it is on Wikipedia:Supermajority. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

which, as you may note, is NOT a consensus :-P Kim Bruning 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the significance of neutral votes? Are they ever reckoned? Anwar 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In the "vote tally", they are considered by closing bureaucrats in close cases; if there are a lot of oppose-ish neutral votes and the support percentage falls between 75-80%, then they can tip the balance to "no consensus." In most cases, however, they're used by individuals who want to raise awareness of issues, but express no particular opinion about promotion, such as "Neutral - Doesn't seem very active in...". I would venture to label them as most useful for helping other voters to decide how to vote. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, are bureaucrats still using consensus as their criterium at all? It would be nice if someone came out and actually stated that supermajority was the official criterium for Requests for Adminship, because at least then we could kill it cleanly. Kim Bruning 00:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The last time I ran statistics, I was responsible for 50% of the promotions since 1 April (I don't have figures on percentage of total RfAs, only total promotions). So, I can say definately that in all those I've closed, this has been the standard: less than 75% fails, 75-80% is the bureaucrat's descretion, 80% is promote. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Did someone mention bcrat stats? Go here </shameless plug> NoSeptember ^talk 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's terrible. I'll chalk that up as Requests for admniship being totally broken. Kim Bruning 10:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You can say that, and I agree it should be less strictly numerically based, but the fact is most people agree RfA is working pretty well. There aren't many false negatives or positives, and certainly not enough that we should be wringing our hands about it. - Taxman ^Talk 11:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Users may be interested in the numbers at Guide to requests for adminship. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)}

I don't see why the fact that it's a vote bothers people. Of course, I respect that you feel that way, but I don't understand it. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 06:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Grey zone nominations (Archive 60)

There are currently a number of close nominations. Please spend extra time looking into these candidates to discover if they can be trusted with the extra tools and give expanded reasoning as to why you think they should or should not be promoted so that a consensus can be developed. Thank you all for your efforts. - Taxman ^Talk 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is RfA a vote? (Archive 60)

I know we're all votephobic here, but consider the definition of the word vote... "A formalized choice on matters of administration or other democratic activities" (Wiktionary), "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office" (Webster). Even with the ambiguous 75-80% thing, RfA still obviously is a vote. To call it purely a discussion is simply not accurate... it implies that vote-like qualities are not present. We can talk about consensus all day... but we still all know that 70% always fails and 90% always passes. That's about getting enough votes, and consensus is only an incidental byproduct of that at best. --W.marsh 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what's it about. This is a simple voting proceedure. Its all about a popularity contest and how many chaps you've got in the east box. To claim this is a "reasonable and concensus-based proccedure" is a blatent falsehood. -Zero^Talk 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You could say the same thing about all decision-making on Wikipedia, but it wouldn't make you very popular :). The idea is, though, that there isn't a set amount required to pass, and that pure "votes" without reasoning may not be considered as strongly as elaboration. You're right that if an RfA gets 100 support votes, with no discussion at all, its still gonna pass, even if it has, say, 5 well reasoned opposers. (In general. It would be up to the closing B, of course). A better example can be seen in AfD though, where there's generally only 10-20 people commenting - AfDs often go against the majority vote, because the other side has made compelling points based on policy - so the vote count isn't as relevant as that. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh fiddlesticks I say! Nonsense! I'm already quite an unpopular fellow; take a gander at my talkpage and "vandalism spree" I'll never be the popular lad again, despite my good looks and devilish charm. The work of us unpopular folk is never done, I tell you.-Zero^Talk 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my comment was to the original poster, an edit conflict got it mixed up. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Contrary to a "real life" votation, here you can switch your vote on the fly several times based on other's opinions. It is not as "pure" consensus as FACs or AFDs, but it is a consensus between the "voters" and the "candidate", and between the voters themselves. I would not call it a pure votation because people is able to switch from oppose to support based on a personal consensus with the candidate. -- ReyBrujo 15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what I'm saying. People (the very ones who say this isn't a vote) would be screaming for blood if a B'crat didn't promote a candidate with 100 support uh, comments, with no meaningful support arguments made, and 5 very compelling oppose comments. It's just not a possible outcome, and I've had b'crats tell me that no one over 80% (discounting socks and dupes) can fail RfA. With their hands so tied, it's hard to really buy that they're doing anything more than counting beans in RfAs not in the 75-80% range. Anyway most RfAs aren't in that range. And I don't really care about whether I'm popular or not :-) --W.marsh 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the main reason we say RfA isn't a vote is because not all opinions are treated equally. A badly explained vote by a newbie won't be given as strong a weighting as a well explained vote by a respected member of the community. The problem is that buros are generally too scared to go against the numerical result because they know it will cause a scandal - even passing on 76% (which the guildlines say is completely fine) causes problems (usually of the "if you passed him on 76%, why didn't you pass XYZ?" type). We need to give our buros more room to do their job - we selected them because we trusted them, so why don't we show it? --Tango 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We have never denied that RfA has characteristics bearing a resemblance to a vote. But it is not really one. In a vote process, anyone who fulfills the criteria (enfranchisement) is allowed to cast one vote and have it count towards the final result. Our basic criterion for participation on RfA is being a registered user. If this were a vote, any registered account would cast a vote and that would have to count, and the only possibility of it being discounted would have to be sockpuppetry (because it would be the same individual voting twice). But that's not how it works (or at least how it can work) on RfA: a user's participation may be discounted in the end for various reasons, such as a user's history of disturbing Wikipedia (e.g.:WP:POINT issues). We often flag participating accounts that were created in the same day as they have supported/opposed a candidate, or accounts with only a handful of edits that suddenly find their way to an RfA. That's not how it works in a vote: if you have, for instance, a minimum age, it doesn't matter if the individual's birthday is on the very day of the vote, it can not be discounted because of that. Besides, in a true vote rationales are not relevant, since the percentage of support votes cast is really all that counts. To make a parallel with a very recent issue here on RfA, in a true vote it is perfectly possible to refuse a candidate because you have issues with his ethnicity or his religion (I'm talking about the reasons for voting: in most democracies, no one can be barred from entering an election for those reasons).
That being said, there is something that's quite accurate about Wikipedia's inner workings: the more people we have willing to participate in the decision-making processes, the more those processes tend to approach a vote system. RfA is going through a similar instance: over the last year or so, the number of people participating in the process of appointing Administrators has boomed considerably. It is up to us to keep it from becoming a simple vote process, which would not be good for Wikipedia. Redux 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree that various restrictions and disqualifications makes it cease to be a vote. In the US, felons are not allowed to vote in most situations, and people who registered incorrectly in any number of ways are also routinely denied a vote. Even people who forget to bring valid ID to a polling place can be turned away in some jurisdictions. Plenty of restrictions can be put in place and it's still a vote. It doesn't matter who is being allowed to vote so much as the fact that they are engaging in a process that is indistinguishable from a vote.

But I do agree with your assertion that as the number of people involved in a debate increases, it tends to increasingly resemble a vote. That is definently something I've observed all over the project. I'm just unsure of the wisdom of trying to bury our heads in the sand and say it's not a vote, when it obviously is. 6 months ago an RfA with 30 participants was average... now it hardly ever happens. In 6 more months, we might hardly ever see an RfA with under 100 participants. And I'm pretty sure it will blatently be a vote at that point (similar to the last Arbcom elections)... whether we like it or not. --W.marsh 17:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In the US there are set rules for who can and can't vote. In RfA there aren't. That's the point Redux was making, I think. --Tango 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with RfA is that the 'crat cannot decide for sure if an argument carries weight. If an oppose "vote" for a candidate with 2 months experience is "Not enough experience", the 'crat cannot decide on its own if the objection is valid or not (unlike XfDs where criteria exist and debate is done on borderline cases). So unless the community comes up with a mininum qualification (which seems unlikely) and clear-cut definition of what constitutes civility (for oppose based on civility issue), the RfA is doomed to be a vote rather than a discussion. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambuj Saxena, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your comment. The community has not agreed on a clear set of criteria for admin. This vacuum makes it hard for the 'crats to eliminate votes unless they are practically an abuse of the system type vote. Even then the votes are not necessarily publicly set aside, especially if the candidate has a clear margin of support. The system looks more like a vote than it would otherwise. FloNight ^talk 17:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, any attempt to define hard criteria that can or can't be a valid vote just seems like a bad idea. The whole reason we have humans making decisions in the first place is because you really can't pin down in a checklist what makes a good administrator... each candidate is going to be different. --W.marsh 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can:

Minimum of 250,000 edits.
Minimum of 100 featured articles.
No history of blocks, warnings, complaints, or angry messages on their talk page.
Is personally vouched for by Jimbo.

Now while these qualifications may not be the most permissive, I'm confident that enforcing them henceforth will ensure that our admins are only of the highest caliber. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously now. : - ) Strongly disagree that no community-based criteria should exist. This leaves the possibility that some users are stating their opposition to a nom for the same reason that other users give for supporting the nom. The 'crats are left to either discount all voters that conflict one way or the other, or make a criteria decision that should be made by the community. This is happening on some RFA's that are borderline now. FloNight ^talk 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say that if there were set criteria, there'd be no need for a vote or discussion at all, since it'd just be a matter of if they pass the criteria. But I realized this isn't really true, cause there are set criteria for articles, and we still need AfD. (Though, to flip again, those are mostly about interpreting the criteria, which would be much simpler to lay out for admins than for all the various policy) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What we need to do is decide what types of arguements are valid (eg. can you oppose someone for insufficent portal talk edits?), RfA then decides if those arguements are true in this case, and if they outweigh the other true arguements. It's balancing things that should be the main job for people "voting" in RfA (are 3 barnstars enough to counter a block for 3RR 18 months ago? Does 15000 main space edits counter having only 10 WP space edits? etc). --Tango 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What I was talking about the rules of enfranchisement in a real vote, and why RfA is not one: Those rules are set in advance, those who fulfill them have a right to vote, and to have that count towards the result; those who don't fulfill the requirements are denied from the start a right to vote. If you must be of a certain minimum age to vote, you will vote if you are at least that old, and if you aren't you will not vote. Picture this: if a vote system worked like RfA does, we could have people arriving at the pools and having the people who work there decide something like you are 18, but you are turning 18 today, so you may vote, but your vote probably will not be considered in determining the outcome of the election. The only such rule we have on RfA is that a person needs to be registered to participate. There are no limitations or predefinitions in terms of how experienced, well-versed, etc. a person needs to be in order to participate. In terms of building consensus, the community decides subjectively if a rationale should carry any weight, and be decisive for the outcome of the RfA. In a vote, every vote has the same weight: one person, one vote. In a vote, voters are not required to provide reasons for their position, it is a simple "yes" or "no" and then count the votes (be it a ballot cast or hands raised). In RfA, no one is required to provide a rationale either, but without it, that vote may loose importance, and, depending on the circumstances, even end up disconsidered. That can not happen in a vote. Redux 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is on how much discounting of votes actually happens. In a hypothetical RfA with 81% support from non-sockpuppets with substantial edit histories, are you ever going to see it fail because nearly all of the supports gave no reasoning whatsoever, while every oppose voter did? I seriously doubt you ever will. This is where RfA is a vote... because the person succeeded by getting enough votes, pure and simple. If we want RfA to not be a vote, we'd need to somehow give b'crats a lot more leeway in making decisions and weighing arguments... though I don't know if we actually want to do that.
As for enfranchisement, I think we all know blocked users, those with <50 edits, and sockpuppets will always have their votes crossed out (if caught), I mean you're never going to see an RfA sunk because 5 people with no prior edits voted oppose, right? Even if these aren't written into policy... we know they're going to happen. --W.marsh 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It just doesn't happen that way. In an even more severe hypothetical situation with 80 some percent support where all the supports were weak support from very new editors and all of the opposes were well articulated and vehement opposition from longstanding editors with a history of evaluating candidates for RfA, then yes, I would fail that RfA, numbers be damned, and I hope everyone else would to. But that just doesn't happen. People don't get 80% support in that situation because people do take others arguments into account. And to the extent that people take other's reasoning into account, that's what makes this different from a vote. Because that scenario doesn't happen and will remain hypothetical that means there just aren't that many situations where votes need to be discounted. Do we reserve the right to do so when needed though? Of course. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the situation in the reverse ? Sam Vimes's RFA barely survived because some people thought that not warning the vandals is a major issue. IMNSHO, it is a frivolous excuse to oppose a prolific editor. All that was probably needed was getting an assurance from him that he would do so in the future. Has there ever been an instance of an RfA being promoted despite getting less votes than the threshold because the b'crats considered the oppose arguments not sound enough ? Tintin (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the only other 75-80% that ever passed were Karmafist and Freestylefrappe and they were later impeached in very high-profile cases. So I'm guessing that Sam survived because he had two arbitrators (who typically avoid RfAs) and a bureaucrat write long support statements and tried to rebutt some of the opposes. Also there were about 8 "weak" opposes, longer impassioned please from supporters. Also the opposes where not due to fear of abuse, but rather redundancy. Also I suspect that Anwar's recommendation was likely ignored. As for any lower numerical cases of 'crat inervention, I don't think so - see the AzaToth case, which I now regret opposing - got about 73%, and the opposition was because he edited templates rather than the mainspace directly - which lead to the resignation of Francs2000. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Same Vimes RfA didn't barely survive. He had a large amount of strong, very well reasoned support, while most of the opposition was stated as weak. And no, I don't see a reason to promote on the low end of the threshold <75% unless there were no solid opposes at all and all of the supports were extremely strong and well reasoned. But that doesn't happen either, even though I maintain that it would be right to promote if it does. Whenever there is less than 75% support there really are always substantial, well reasoned opposition comments. And I think the community has fairly clearly spoken that the less than the threshhold promotions weren't the greatest in hindsight. There really is a decent difference between 75 and 80% if you're counting. 75 is 3 supports for every oppose and 80 is 4. And Blnguyen I take it you were referring to the less than 75% supports being promoted, because freestylefrappe was in that category if I recall and there have been quite a number of people passed within the 75-80% range. And there I go talking all about numbers when that isn't what it needs to be about. It's about can the candidate be trusted to use the tools well and not abuse them. More well reasoned comments in the candidacies that make it clear the candidate has been well evaluated to determine if they can be trusted will always be given better weight. - Taxman ^Talk 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, would you say that Herostratus' RfA barely survived? There were long-time editors on both sides of oppose and support, and I would call it a close one. Kimchi.sg 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The RfA process (Archive 61)

Megaman re your post above; if I may add my $0.02, without splitting hairs in actuality any democratic one user:one vote system by definition is based on the nominee's popularity - hence the term popular vote. But I understand what you meant. If you aren't attacking the individual personally then I see no reason why you could not name an example or two. Personally as that is a rather bold statement and I see no reason for you to make it without thought. Even if only to myself (and others who may ask perhaps) in the knowledge it would go no further. Thanks in advance, - Glen 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to make a template for this: RFA is NOT a vote! It is certainly not "one user:one vote", so the entire rest of your comment is null and void. I have faith in our crats to know that one "Oppose because of these acts of vandalism" is worth more than one "Support - he's my friend". --Tango 16:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but these "vote" certainly influence the Bureaucrats decision, and rhus a popular member does have an advantage, allbeit fair or not - Glen 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Worrying about the term vote is not necessary. Come up with a short term (4 letters or less) that clearly defines the process and we can use that instead. Otherwise, vote is a perfectly valid shorthand here. After all, the bureaucrats know what is going on. NoSeptember 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps calling the RfA a request for comment much like AfD? - Glen 16:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In the context of "one user:one vote", it's clearly not a shorthand, it's a misunderstanding of how RfA works (or at least, is meant to work - whether it actually works that way isn't so certain, I personally trust the crats) --Tango 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Popularity" is a poorly defined term in this case. I consider a person who I think will be a good admin to be personally popular to me, even if I have never interacted with them. And of course I feel no obligation to vote for a friend if I think they are not suited for the job. NoSeptember 16:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is popularity. The problem, GIen, as I see, is that adminship is really but a set of tools to allow editors to assist wikipedia to a higher level. This shouldn't be considered anything close to a nomination for a politicial posistion. I don't wish to use external examples, as I feel such could be construed as a personal attack or the like. Its essentially the growth of wikipedia, perhaps. The more editors we recieve, the less the nominations have been dependant upon the skill and devotion of our editors. Its about who likes who best. I rarely see nominations that pass without sufficient support on a person's charisma. Its cool to be a person everyone likes, but that's not what wikipedia should base upon. We're seeking reasonable, skillfull, experienced editors who aren't afraid to sometimes place their fat in the community fire to uphold the values of the encyclopedia, rather than that of the select populist's ticket.

And it is a vote. Plain and simple. People vote for stupid reasons, assume bad faith and the numbers are counted at the end of the day. This is a firm reminder of my high school gavel club. Despite being skilled speakers, the best lads were tossed to the side because they didn't meet the standards of perfection or they didn't have the spanking new blazers. And the school suffers becasue of that. Popularity is great. But it doesn't help the encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the way the system works, and has always done so throughout society (Look at the Gov of california, Jesus Bush is still president for God's sake - because of knowledge or skill? - nor popularity either though I might add! hmmm) Anyway, I digress... I think yes popular members get more votes, however - why are they popular? You mentioned your gavel club. Perhaps the speakers you cited were not suitable as they should have been aware to keep their blazers "spanking". Popular members are just that because of their social skills. If I may name names, take Tony Sidaway, great admin, but, most would agree that he could possibly improve the way he interacts with (new, but also older) users. Some have taken breaks or gotten upset because of this. However, naming names again, we also have the likes of Sam Blanning, Bookofjude, NoSeptember (3 chosen at random) and the rapore they have... I have enormous respect for Tony, and I certainly mean no disrespect here but if all admins were as cut to the chase by the book and, well, efficient in handling other users then wikipedia would be a much less enjoyable experience (and I think Tony would agree). Those users voted in because others like them are to my mind worthy for that reason alone. Thoughts? - Glen 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell you how people are considered popular, GI. I've never been a popular person in my life in or out of the wiki. What I can say is that I'm generally a hated wikipedian and it doesn't bother me much provided I get to assist the encyclopedia to the best of my abilities. Many editors complain that I'm cold, I don't regard other feelings, I'm "too bold" and that I generally don't think about anything else other than the encyclopedia. This isn't entirely true, but I see how my objective way of thinking makes it seem that way.

In addition to my failings, I am a very experienced wikipedian. I took a personal mentorship under Tony Sidaway to learn what is proper, I've reviewed many policies, I make and greatly expand articles commonly, and I have a long and respected editting history of around 15,000 edits which are distributed evenly across every namespace. My general editting habbits are that of a consistent user [7], which on occasion has made me very depressed and stressful. Popularity is suitible in common society because everyday people aren't elected senator. This is wikipedia, a volunteer project. -Zero^Talk 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I have long had an idea for nomenclature here: rather than v-te, why not the "post which cannot be named"? For instance, "in my post which cannot be named (PWCBN) I supported his adminship." Marskell 17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

<cliche>Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.</cliche> Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you start doing that, you won't mind if I refactor your comments, will you? ;-) NoSeptember 17:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone call me? Oh wait, nevermind. --HWSNBN ^{(Dark Mark)}

I quite like the !vote term that was suggested a while back somewhere. It's short and to the point :) Petros471 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have invented and repeatedly used the non-word "notvote" in this context. So far, no-one has laughed :/ -- grm_wnr Esc 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: people should calm down and not all panic-attack anyone who uses the word vote. I understand perfectly well why what we do isn't voting, but language itself is indifferent - 'vote' is a synonym of 'opinion' (fight with Mr. Theausaurus, not me). If someone does the correct thing (makes well reasoned arguments or discussion), and just happens to say the word vote, they really don't need 10 people yelling at them for it. Just having used the word does not mean they "don't know AfD/whatever is not a vote". If someone truly doesn't understand (all they do is go Support or Delete with no rationale), then it should be explained to them. But if someone is voicing their opinions just fine, and accidentally slips out a "vote", their only mistake is not realizing they're about to get beat up for using a dirty word. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All well and good, but the first message of this section talks about democracy and "one user:one vote", which is very clearly a misunderstanding of how it works. Just because "vote" can be a synonym of "opinion" doesn't mean it always is, the usage of it in that message was not talking about opinions. --Tango 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tango in the sense that these votes do play some role (large or small) in the crats decision - as such they do count, and as such one user one vote holds true as valid. And please AGF rather than stating I (or my comments) "show very clearly a misunderstanding of how it works" - Glen 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree in this case. I just meant in general, there's a lot of paranoia over the word, rather than seeing what people actually are doing. Maybe this wasn't the place to say so, though, since as you say, "vote" is being used the non-wiki way in this case. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On Super-duper majority and voting for administrators (Archive 63)

I have been studying closely the issues surrounding RFA and have determined that perhaps one of the problems is the requirement for a super-duper majority of support votes in order to obtain adminship (75% to 80%). If you compare this to other areas where community consensus is measured, this criteria looks like a slap in the face to those standards. In particular, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, it seems weird that in the RFA process suddenly we are requiring a super-duper majority of basically self-declared voting Wikipedians who can create their own arbitrary standards for voting and affect a decision in a manner that is easily abused by pile-ons. I have been a member of Wikipedia for some time, but I could not believe it when I was bitten by diehard RfA voters who didn't like the responses to the questions I made but made no attempt to explain what exactly they didn't like about them. Since every user can make up their own standards and RfA voters seem to move like a pack, there is really little in the way of protecting outsiders here in this peculiar corner of Wikipedia. I think if we removed the 75% to 80% statements in exchange for the normal statements about consensus this would be a lot better. Have the beuracrats exercise their arbitrary authority the way admins exercise their arbitrary authority at WP:AfD. If they can ascertain a consensus in favor, a consensus against, or no consensus, great. Maybe we can have them sift through some of the baloney that people have begun to insert in their personal standards that are not a part of the written prose regarding the RfA process. --ScienceApologist 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To achieve this without changing the threshold, we would need a rethink of RfA standards, however. I suppose the bureaucrats can decide, but in my opinion if a candidate receives less than 70% they need to look at those oppose votes and think about their position, then do their best to change before their next RfA (if they have another). It's important to note that bureaucrats can use their discretion of a nomination is clost. --Draicone ^(talk) 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying what is meant by 75% (Archive 63)

Thanks to everyone who helped me clean up some of the explanations of the process in front matter. I had one more change for your consideration: [8].

The rationale for this change is that it removes the parenthetical and the "rough" approximation which is unnecessary and misleading since it's pretty clear that someone getting less than 75% would not be granted adminship (as per the last time this happened people made a big stink) and it made it clear what the 75% support was refering to -- specifically votes in support of the nomination. Please tell me what you think of this edit.

--ScienceApologist 18:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't make it clear enough that at 80%, promotion is likely. In reality, between 75% and 80%, Bureaucrats have a lot of discretion. Outisde this range, they (importantly) still have discretion (for example, if new information comes to light near the end of the debate) but have to tread carefully. Depending on feedback, I'll put this in words on the page, but I don't want to leave it in its current form for long, because I think it is an undiscussed material change to current consensus. Stephen B Streater 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the promotion threshold can be made larger if bureaucrats have a good reason to promote or not promote outside the 75-80% range (e.g. a hypothetical HRE case had occured just prior to closure, and the nomination had an 85% or so support ratio). The actual numbers themselves are a sort of unspoken rule, although having them on the page could produce an appearance of official endorsement, which could be counterproductive. Tito xd^(?!?) 18:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of "unspoken rules" being hidden because we should, as accomplished Wikipedia editors all, be able to explain how things happen so that there are no surprises. I think we can nuance this to let people know what the standards usually are but also inform them that in extreme circumstances there can be other things that happen. --ScienceApologist 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a table would be appropriate for illustrating what happens in general?

Percentage of support votes	Nomination status
< 75%	Usually nomination fails
75% to 80%	Consensus determined by bureaucrat
> 80%	Usually nomination succeeds

--ScienceApologist 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: You're looking at this the wrong way. RfAs are not about percentages, at the core. RfAs are about consensus, and that should be stated. A table is unnecesary, and it only creates confusion. Consensus is always determined by a beaurocrat, and while I can't provide an example (I'm too lazy to find one) of a nom where it failed at above 80%, I'm pretty sure one exists. You're trying to make something fluid into a hard and fast rule, instead of stating the general terms.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not trying to make the 75% threshold a rule, I'm trying to describe what generally happens at a RfA. While I understand your concern that this is really about consensus and not about "standards", we should be able to nuance our statement so that people who come to RfA know what to expect. Consensus building at RfA is considerably different than consensus building in other parts of Wikipedia. I just want to illustrate how it's different. I'm sure that there are RfAs that were successful that were below 75% and there were RfAs that were unsuccessful above 80%. That's not the point of this description. I think it's only fair to explain that this is a community-accepted standard that is subject to the discretion of the bureaucrats. Is there anything wrong with that? --ScienceApologist 19:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To save the trouble of new tables, why not use the existing one on BN, adequately coloured to indicate what the percentages mean.... Tyrenius 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot! Having a table that the bureacrats actually use would improve the transparency of the description of RfA. --ScienceApologist 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

While you discuss how to get the table colours with Tawkerbot, you should remember that this is not a vote and so percentages are only approximate. The weak law of large numbers just means that generally strong and weak points can balance out between pro and con supporters, so percentages usually work. There is no clear percentage which guarantees success or failure as good arguments may all be one one side, and late events may invalidate earlier arguments. Stephen B Streater 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of this. I just want to describe the process so it is clearer to people who come here for the first time is all. We can include in bold blinking letters if you want that the percentages are approximate and subject to the various meaningful consensus issues. I liked your wording about "discretion". --ScienceApologist 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the process described accurately at WP:GRFA? I think that it is, and perhaps just linking more prominently to that page would solve the issue. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is buried at the bottom of this page, but what is a description of the process doing in the guide anyway? Shouldn't the process be described up-front? --ScienceApologist 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So I'm pretty confident that accurately describing RfA right now is summarized in part by the discussions we're having here. Is it okay to say that there is consensus that the parenthetical wording can be changed to accomodate a better description of what goes on? --ScienceApologist 01:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

75% threshold brings entire RfA into question? (Archive 63)

75% is not consensus. That's majority. I think that a lot of people really do now just treat RfA as a vote. We may need to replace it soon. Could people who previously had proposals for replacement systems please step forward? Kim Bruning 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as big stinks are made whenever this treshold is violated and bureaucrat-status is dependent on accepting this "unspoken rule" it certainly feels like a voting system to me. --ScienceApologist 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to get RfA to be more concensus based is to increase the range of descretion from 75-80% to 65-90%. It would be nice to remove the guidelines completely, but that will just cause people to use the 75-80% guideline unofficially, so it's better to have a firm guideline, just one that is closer to the desired system. I don't think RfA is broken enough to require a whole new system - that would be overkill. --Tango 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's still a majority based system. Could you propose a less "dangerous" system? Kim Bruning 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [1] The danger of majority voting systems is that they get imitated in the article namespace, where they're not supposed to be used.

As it exists today, RFA is not a simply vote or election. It is a consensus building activity with using the opinions expressed by participants to gauge consensus. Reality on the ground shows that very few RFA's are difficult interperate if you look at volume of comments, trends, as well as the number of participants voicing a particular opinion. FloNight ^talk 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'd prefer it to be entirely at the beurocrat's descretion, but I don't think that would work - people would expect crats to continue using the 75-80% guideline, and when they decide against convention, there'd still be an outcry, as there is now. With a firm guideline, but one with enough leeway for crats to use their descretion in the vast majority of cases where there is any need to, the crats would actually be allowed to do their jobs. It's a compromise, basically. --Tango 21:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

/me takes large step forward. There have been a number of proposals, including my earlier suggestion for a sponsorship-driven system where prospective admins would be under the tutelage of a seasoned admin who would be responsible in part for their conduct. The core problem at RFA is not the percentages but rather the fact that good candidates get discouraged by the uncertainty and by the fact that even responsible involvement in conflict can be disqualifying. Less significant but still important is the fact that a handful of poor candidates are getting approved. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to correct something said above, I don't think any RfA with 80% or more support (after accounting for socks) has ever failed, at least not since the days when there were 10-15 people commenting in the average RfA. So despite the vigerous insistance that 80% is not a rule..... it is a rule, and we're simply not going to see anyone with legitimately over 80% support fail. --W.marsh 22:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's important to have bureacrats you can trust to make a good decision. As is, people with the right social connections can muster 50-60 support votes without making a substantial contribution to the project. In addition, many people tend to vote and walk away - people who switch their votes in response to the discussion are rare. If something really worrying came up late in the debate, I trust that most of the bureaucrats would hold off on promotion. Still, I would prefer something closer to the FAC idea, where you would promote someone after all the substantive criticisms were dealt with the the satisfaction of the people raising the complaints. It would take much more bureaucratic involvement, it would require that they make the (higly controversial) decision of which opposes to discount, but it would move the idea back towards consensus... Guettarda 04:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions for adminship proposed a system of commentary/evidence first, 'voting' later, but got shot down earlier this year. -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be more like a US Senate confirmation hearing. Seems like everybody gets turned inside out and then gets passed overwhelmingly that way. Nothing wrong with a thorough examination as long as people don't get vetoed for every little mistake.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflictx3)Why would someone that had over 80% support fail? That is strong community consensus. If 'crats saw an issue raised toward the end of customary timeframe, the best course of action would be to extend the RFA. The appropriate role for the 'crat should be guiding the process toward the best outcome for the community. FloNight ^talk 04:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am just saying that I could forsee circumstances in which a 'crat might not promote someone who passes the 80% threshold. Guettarda 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You could get partisan "vote lobbying" by someone organizing a bakdoor campaign to get similar editors of similar ideology to contribute. Look at the ethnic splits on the Khoikhoi (Turkish bloc oppose) or Bormalagurski (Serbian supports). If there was an innappropriate majority (OK, it's highly unlikely that Bormalagurski could find 100 ultra-nationalists to vote for him) or a large gropu of friends they could just override the dodgy aspects brought up by serious contributors. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless those people were already wikizens their votes would just be discounted. And if someone did have a stack of 100, it wouldn't be that hard to find 25 people who'll oppose on the grounds that stacking shows bad faith. And there are other appeal processes. But this is just speculation. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a problem with the current system that needs fixing. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Current system is fine. I see no need for change. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this type of behavior described above is effective. During my RFA, (last of April/early May) a newbie started a email campaign against me because of a content dispute with my nominator. He left a strong oppose comment that was not factually accurate. These tactics did not sway the community, I was promoted with 93% (another of the opposes in the count was someone 14th edit to Wikipedia.) I agree that the current process is good. The main problem is getting enough experienced Wikipedians to comment on a regular basis. FloNight ^talk 04:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So you don't disagree that the system works then. I frankly don't see any improvements which would not be burdensome and which would qualitatively improve things. My rant above is because I am getting tired of people wanting to change things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, people *have* changed things, and moved away from consensus over time. So we need to get that fixed back to consensus yet again. I guess that if you can't handle constant change, wikipedia is probably not really the best place to hang out. Kim Bruning 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As to whether RFA is working? Apparently there's some bad apples in our current group of admins, because we currently have a Wikipedia:Oversight process, that is designed specifically to keep certain information away from admins. That's a pretty clear vote of no confidence in our en.wikipedia admins as a group by the wikimedia foundation. They saw the problem of admins misbehaving in particular circumstances, and apparently had to do something or risk getting sued(!).

That leaves us with new problems of course, (like who gets oversight over oversight), but that's a different story for a different time.

In the mean time, don't try to sell to me that Requests for adminship is still working, because it has so obviously failed in real life. RFA will probably never be perfect , but it doesn't have to be quite THAT bad, does it? Can we make it so that oversight can go unused, sometime in the near future? Kim Bruning 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, no. The two are designed to combat different problems. Administrator "abuse" comes in two broad types:

Self-serving abuse: this is the usual blocking users that piss you off/protecting pages to your own version/etc. issue. We can probably push RFA towards more reliably detecting people who are likely to do this based on their behavior in conflicts and so forth.
Malicious abuse: this is what oversight was designed to handle—people who aren't after particular results within the project, but are instead looking to actually harm the WMF and/or its projects from the outside. There's no way for RFA (inherently a social process) to detect something of this sort, because the actions taken here are generally not visible on the wiki itself. Hence, the need for technical measures. Kirill Lokshin 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what Kirill said. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do need to give 1000 people access to the information that was removed? We should be operating on a need to know basis. I do not need to know the who, what, when, where and why of oversight. The same is true of many things on Wikipedia. Like checkuser and some issues with banned users. Everyone, even admins, do not need to know all the details. FloNight ^talk 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if Oversight is a good idea in general, the fact remains that there exist administrators who repost deleted content. It is not merely a preventive measure or to stem satisfaction of curiousity. —Centrx→talk • 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Another problem could be that friendly users passingly acquainted with the nominee stop by, whip off of a "Support obviously, he is the greatest!" or, almost worse, "Support, great edit summary usage", and then never return to find problems, or, as mentioned (don't know if true) above about mboverload, come by and give an "Oppose, per comments by Bob" because of a first post by an opposer that turns out to be weak. I find this happens sometimes on AfD, but is not a problem because it is not used like a vote. Later comments clearly explain why the article should be kept or deleted, and the closing administrator can clearly see this is valid when compared to the first, unconsidered "Delete per nom" comments. This is also because AfDs have various users breezing through and commenting where necessary, without a hundred possibly little considered votes that are locked in with the user not returning. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference between RfA and AfD is that respect is that RfA has a default (to promote - the whole "no big deal" thing), whereas AfD doesn't. Any vote in AfD needs to give specific reasons, however there generally aren't any specific reasons to promote someone in RfA - you promote if there is no reason not to. If someone votes with no reason in an AfD, you can ignore it, you can't do that in an RfA, otherwise you'd be ignoring every support vote. --Tango 13:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In practice does anyone ever dismiss an oppose vote in RfA because of this? I had a number of people vote "oppose" on my RfA with little to no explanation yet nobody seemed to indicate that this was in conflict with the "no big deal" thing. --ScienceApologist 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think crats only take it into account if the result is in the 75-80% range. --Tango 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly any week passes without one-three threads that the current system is broken and needs fixing, will all kinds of proposals floating around. That made me curious. Do we really have a problem? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It would at the very least indicate that many candidates do not think they were considered fairly. Otherwise, I see no reason why many discussions of problems could be taken as evidence of a lack of a problem. —Centrx→talk • 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is better to keep it at that percent. It might look too restrictive, but that is the intention. Otherwise, some troll/vandal with working habits could get en.wiki into junk. Think, a vandal with his fellows + their sockpuppets and there you are. Just because the threshold was too low. A calm, fair and neutral person will mostly get over 75%, any doubtful person won't.
Or, as we know it "better (too much) safe than (even more) sorry". Kubura 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

apparent contradiction (Archive 64)

The first entry under Commenting and expressing opinions" says "Who may comment: Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to express their opinion, including the nominator." This would seem to indicate that anonymous (IP) comments are stricken. The last entry says "Threaded discussions are held in the Comments section. Long discussions are held on the discussion page of the individual nomination. Anyone may comment or discuss, including anonymous editors." This indicates that IP comments are welcome (even though they have to have an account to vote).

Which one of these is correct? The incorrect one needs to be fixed. - CheNuevara 15:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks like another result of the infamous "votes to comments" conversion. Back when it wasn't taboo to use the word "vote", RFA had a suffrage against anonymous users making votes but were still allowed to make comments (ie, in the "Comments" section). Therefore, it used to be that any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote, but anyone may comment, including anonymous editors. Since I doubt "!vote" will be used in "official" documentation, I think "express their opinion" should be changed to something like "support or oppose" (which doesn't cover neutral, but is the best in terms of minimalistic text), or "leave a support, oppose, or neutral comment" (which is unwieldy, but is technically the most accurate). Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if we just used the damn "vote" or "!vote". ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We should just use the term "vote" anyway unless we change RfA to a pure discussion. Kusma (討論) 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Anons can comment, they just can't comment. Heh. --W.marsh 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about "You need an account to state a formal opinion, however anonymous users may make other comments." (Basically !vote becomes "formal opinion") --Tango 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we post a picture of someone bending over backwards alongside this language... --W.marsh 17:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about bending over forwards? Bending over backwards may be offensive to some. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about just Image:pretzel.jpg? Oh wait, that'll be offensive to those with wheat allergies... -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Anyone is welcome to express thier opinion on any candidate. Commments by non-logged-in users are restricted to the "Comments" section, as they are intended to aid others in the formation of thier comments, and are not utilized in determining promotion." That says, in an addmittedly much longer form than before, that anons can bring stuff up, but thier opinion on promotion isn't counted towards the standard for promotion (the minimum 75% support one nobody wants to admit exists but won't stand for anyone "violating"). Essjay (Talk) 21:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think we'd be better off just calling the thing a vote. Playing semantic games or writing things out in long and complicated language, just serves to confuse people. For what? Some little bit of moral comfort that we aren't really voting as long as we all agree not to call it a vote? That's just silly. If you want RFA to not involve voting, then work to change RFA, but don't just obfusticate the language and declare mission accomplished. It strikes me that this is Wikipedia's own special little version of political correctness run amok. Dragons flight 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're saying what most of us are thinking, I'd wager, or perhaps what we're already saying in our own, twisted, humourous ways. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Twisted humour. I agree with you both. -- Ec5618 21:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the moment it officially becomes a vote, is the moment some people are going to swoop in and kill the process as being totally out of control. That's why people who want to make it into a vote are twisting themselves into more and more impossible positions to try and prevent the waiting sentinals from officially catching on. I'm watching this with wry amusement. Not long now. <slow... menacing... grin> Kim Bruning 12:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps bureaucrats should only count reasoned opinions. As WP expands, people know each other less, and giving WP over to drive-by voters would be a undesirable. Stephen B Streater 13:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA isn't really suited to reasoned opinions- either you trust someone or you don't. In any case, either you would need an inventive new reason from every supporter/opposer, or you would end up with 50 'per Mr X's. Henry ^Flower 13:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I only half agree - there are no real reasons to support, but every oppose should be for a specific reason (or combination of specific reasons). However, most people do give a reason - the problem is in deciding if it's a good reason. That can't be a crat's job, as that would give them power to decide for themselves, rather than just determine concensus. --Tango 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been a vote for a long time, whether we've called it that or not. It's not 2003 anymore. And no one's stopped it. --W.marsh 13:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a vote, it only appears to be so because of the volume of people involved in each decision nowadays. Counting heads does get you to a general idea of consensus, and then contemplating the nature of comments gets you the rest of the way. I would point out that AfD is a lot less predictable because the judgment of the closing admin makes a huge difference, and admins have quite a variety of ways that they interpret consensus. I think RfA works better than AfD. NoSeptember 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this argument has been had before, but as long as you always pass by getting 80% and always fail at under 75%, regardless of the quality of arguments... it's a vote, even if we choose not to call it that. No one's ever going to get "contemplated" out of adminship when they have an 81% showing on one of the vote counters after 7 or 8 days, so I find it hard to believe that the discussion is more important than the head count at that point. We wouldn't even want people with 81% failing, anyway. And frankly, that's what works best now with 50-100 people commenting in every RfA. --W.marsh 14:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the topic immediately below here, you'll see someone being promoted with less than 75%... although, to be fair, going by the closing b'crat's statements there they were influenced as much by the unique situation as by the comments. --Aquillion 18:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's only the second time someone outside of the 75%/80% range hasn't gotten the default decision in the past few hundred RfAs. And to be honest, the B'crat who closed it enjoys much more discretion than any other b'crat - that's just how it is. --W.marsh 18:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That could be because he is a Steward. Stephen B Streater 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Danny is both a steward and a bureaucrat, and he went through an RfB and was promoted by community consensus. NoSeptember 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: RFA is not a vote (Archive 68)

Time to make it official? --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of instruction creep, yes.--digital_m e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Might it not be appropriate to simultaneously state what RFA is? (And I don't mean the horribly vague generalizations about "process" and "decides" and so forth.) Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that RFA should not be a vote but perhaps not in the way that you mean it. Lessee...

Wikipedia is not a democracy. In Wikipedia, decisions are made by consensus. Voting is evil.

So... based on the above, a successful RFA should represent the consensus of the community and the vote should only help in determining whether such a consensus exists. This explains why a few well-explained oppose votes should be able to stop an RFA even in the presence of a supermajority.

Is your proposal now saying that an RFA does not have to represent the consensus of the community? Shall we state baldly that bureaucrats are not assessing consensus but simply making a decision using the RFA support/oppose comments as input to their decision?

I hope not. --Richard 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently what Tony is saying is that consensus was reached, but in the same way new users count less to the consensus the beaurocrats count a lot more to the consensus. I don't have a problem with this, but what I would like to know is how much more? Would they have promoted if it was 50:50? David D. (Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the bureaucrats were also saying that consensus had been reached. Wikipedia policy says:

"the threshold for consensus here is determined by bureaucrats on an ad-hoc basis"

Apparently, 58% in favor was enough consensus for the bureaucrats. If you want more stringent definitions of consensus, then you should propose a change in policy. I would support a change in the percentage or a change in the wording. Otherwise, we risk abusing the English language in calling 58% a consensus. --Richard 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That "ad-hoc" quote was just added, after this whole brouhaha. Yesterday, it stated "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support". I am changing it back, but replacing "roughly" with "generally roughly". —Centrx→talk • 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Egads, let's not contribute to the international straw shortage. Was anyone actually suggesting they wanted to see strict vote-counting here? Friday (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is. However there does seem to be a sense among some editors that RFA is, in a very major way, a vote. I've observed and tried to explain how it isn't, and I've gone into such detail as I felt was possible for me to portray accurately what *I* think may be happening. I've even intimated that I believe that as soon as we figure out how it works, it will disappear and be replaced by something even more inexplicable. If I'm right, Carnildo will be a provisional sysop (damn, that was an easy prediction!) and if he behaves himself he'll become a permanent sysop in a couple of months. If on the other hand RFA were a vote, then we wouldn't have trusted him with a sysop bit on a mere whatever-it-is percent of the vote, and we certainly wouldn't be offering him something (provisional sysopping) that has never appeared on the ballot paper before.

I leave this discussion with my final observation. I call it Sidaway's First Law of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is cleverer than you are. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but it's all book smarts! --maru (talk) contribs 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's sad that this has to be pointed out, but it seems to be necessary. It needs to be explicitely stated, as well as what "concensus" means. Seeing the latest hubub over Carnildo, I am shocked that users can say "There wasn't concensus! He only had 60% support!" and not feel the congnative dissonance resonate from their frontal lobes. Teke^(talk) 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Masssivego got pretty close to it and occasionally people do bring up similar ideas on this page or ideas for weighted voting. JoshuaZ 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"There wasn't consensus! There were an enormous number of thoughtful, respected, long-time editors making reasoned arguments about why Carnildo should not have the trust of the community!" Feel better now, Teke? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do a bit. What you said is correct. I was speaking to the specific issue of vote tallying and concensus in the same sentence. To bring up percentages is to compare numbers of support/oppose/neutral, not the reasoned arguments that make up concensus. I'm saying out of the Carnildo debate because I have no chips in it. 'Twas getting that load off my chest. No offense meant! Teke^(talk) 19:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really confused by User:Teke's comment. To my understanding, consenus means "near-unanimity" (see Consensus). Carnildo's RFA was FAR, FAR away from reaching consensus even after you discount sock puppets (haven't seen definitive argument that any voted against) and Orphanbot-related votes. Since real consensus is hard to reach, RFAs seem to use supermajority as a proxy for consensus. The question is whether 61/63% constitutes supermajority or just a "simple majority". Most definitions of supermajority require 66% or 75% of votes cast. So, what is the cognitive dissonance that Teke expects me to feel?

--Richard 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Carnildo case in particular is what I meant. When it's that sort of situation, you get down to the nitty gritty discussion to figure out what's going on. Tallies are moot at that point. So, yeah that was a little brash of me. Sorry! Teke^(talk) 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the way the decision was arrived at. I would like to see bureaucrats use their discretion more often. It's time for the noisy opponents of this RFA to finally accept that they're in the minority, and that any reasonable objections to the promotion are addressed adequately by its probational nature. --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You forget to mention that it was you who silenced "the noisy opponents of this RfA" (including your humble servant) by the most effective way - blocking. I fail to see what was "deliberately inflammatory" in my comments above. If expressing my opinion that I don't trust Carnildo and yourself is a blockable offense, I will seek RfC on this issue. Let the others decide whether what I posted on this page merited a block. That said, my opinion of Wikipedia "democracy" is on the all-time low. Block your opponents - and you'll have a majority. Perhaps even a consensus. Very convenient. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Which, entertainingly, is because they were in the majority, seeing as we're using the language! -Splash - tk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was closed out at 112/71/11. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, isn't avoiding a straight majority/minority breakdown the whole point of consensus? You seem to be condemning both majority-based voting and actual consensus; what, then, are you advocating here (aside, of course, from the supression of the "disgusting rabble")? Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll always accept the consensus of reasoned people, and the deliberations of bureaucrats and arbitrators, over the howls of the mob. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Describing Wikipedians who opposed in the RfA as being a "mob" is highly disrespectful, inappropriate and doesn't help to further the project. You might want to reconsider your attitude. This *is* divisive — a lot more than that userbox-charade. --Ligulem 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that bureaucrats should do more than "determine the consensus of those who vote on an RFA"? Perhaps you are suggesting that RFA voting should be restricted to admins? Where do I go to apply for my "reasonability" certificate? Do we need a new "Request for Reasonability" process? What ARE you proposing? Or are you just trying to get the losers to shut up? --Richard 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, please separate in your mind the disgruntled complaints of those who object to the decision itself (making Carnildo an admin) from those who object to the implications of the decision process on future RFAs. I think your proposal has wide-ranging implications about the RFA process in particular and Wikipedia in general.

The discussion about your proposal should not be about who was in the majority and who was in the minority on this particular RFA. The discussion should be about who decides what the outcome of an RFA should be, the voters or the b'crats. If the job of the b'crats is simply to determine the consensus, then there was NO consensus on this RFA (58% in favor, 37% opposed).

Please consult the definition of the word consensus. It implies near-unanimity.

How would you feel if the vote had been 40% in favor, 35% opposed and 25% neutral? Should a bureaucrat have said "No consensus, no supermajority, not even simple majority but it's the right thing, so promote."? If not, why not?

How about 51% in favor, 40% opposed? If yes, then why? Because a simple majority is enough?

If you are proposing that RFAs be resolved as a simple majority vote, then say that. You said "RFA is not a vote" which suggests that we express our opinions and the b'crats decide whether or not to accept our opinions in making their decision. That's not what the policy is now.

If you want to change the policy, then say that. It's a legitimate argument. I wouldn't agree with the proposal but let's be clear on what's being proposed.

--Richard 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a change in policy. I simply observe that RFA is not a vote, and suggest that we make it official. Numbers have nothing to do with it (because it isn't a vote). On Wikipedia we don't ever determine consensus by adding up support and opposes and seeing what the proportion is. If the current Consensus page says that, then someone has been playing around with it again. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA is not like many other consensus-based decisions on Wikipedia. There aren't many sources that can reliably confirm a user is admin material. No one steps through every one of the user's contributions. The decision is not easily revertible. If a significant number of established users oppose the promotion of a user, that is good reason enough not to promote, when those supporting likewise do not possibly have full access to information and when the decision is relatively non-reversible. It is a negative process; a super-majority vote is important to that and a successful RfA should mean that there was little significant opposition relative to overwhelming support, in addition to the reasons and evidence why a user would make a good admin.

That is in general; in this peculiar case, the user was previously an admin, the persons who caused the bit to be removed agreed to its reinstatement, and a probationary period makes it more easily reversible. —Centrx→talk • 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, and I agree with it to a certain extent, but in my experience it doesn't adequately describe how RFA works. I think it's more complex than that, and "RFA is not a vote" is about all we need, really, to encapsulate the fact that all these numbers don't really count for that much. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this assumes the current way RfA works: That, in general, the people "voting" aren't just dropping something in a ballot box, they are looking into the user, looking into the comments and answers and reasons. If a significant number of them oppose, then the user should not be administrator. It is unfortunate that it shows up as a vote listing, and some people give empty votes, but generally, or at least ideally, each of these votes represents a reasonable Wikipedia giving some level of examination and thought. —Centrx→talk • 19:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding very silly indeed, I'll go back to a point I made above: RFA is, at least officially, supposed to consider whether the candidate enjoys a "level of trust from other editors." Obviously raw numbers are a poor way of determine this; but what else might you suggest (in non-obvious cases) to be an adequate demonstration that a candidate does not enjoy that trust? Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this assumes the current way RfA works: That, in general, the people "voting" aren't just dropping something in a ballot box, they are looking into the user, looking into the comments and answers and reasons. If a significant number of them oppose, then the user should not be administrator. It is unfortunate that it shows up as a vote listing, and some people give empty votes, but generally, or at least ideally, each of these votes represents a reasonable Wikipedia giving some level of examination and thought. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No binding descisions ... any use? Kim Bruning 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

With no effective means of de-adminning, being given the sysop tools is, in effect, a binding decision. Friday (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point. That's bad. Kim Bruning 20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not true, though. Carnildo himself has been desysopped, which is why we held this RFA. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I said no effective means. Friday (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you're welcome to ask Everyking if he can perform a page protect for you, or get Stevertigo to do a block. Perhaps Guanaco could do a history undeletion for you. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We've had 9 involuntary or arbcom-related desysopings this year, which is an average of 1 desysoping a month. That seems somewhat effective to me... (if we've got more than 2% bad apples with the standards that people on RFA have, I'd be pretty surprised...) --Interiot 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on one's definition of bad apple. If it's simply a matter of doing no more good than harm, I'd estimate the figure might be in excess of 25% (and Carnildo is not among them, I might add), but then, I'm what you might call a cynic. —freak(talk) 03:40, Sep. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Yes he said effective though and I agree. If we have to go to the Arbcom to get someone de-sysopped only extreme cases will get looked at. Rather I think Friday means a similar effective opposite of RFA where admins who are generally bad can be successfully voted out of 'ofice' --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Generally bad" ought to boil down to specific conduct issues with relation to the use of the sysop bit. It follows that the Arbitration Committee is the correct body, as the ultimate judge in conduct issues. If you think the Committee are being too soft on bad admins, tell them this. Give examples. --Tony Sidaway 09:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously Carnildo enjoys a high level of trust from other editors, otherwise we'd have queued up to oppose him. I think we can trust the bureaucrats to use their commonsense. I don't agree with the idea that "If a significant number of them [editors] oppose, then the user should not be administrator." That would still be treating it as a vote. However I'm not so much concerned about detail as with accepting that, well a vote is what it isn't. We can refine that over time if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, that is: if a significant number of reasonable Wikipedians who examined and thought about the candidate do not approve, then they should not be an admin. —Centrx→talk • 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, who decides what is "reasonable" and what is not? Who decides which voters have "examined and thought" about the candidate for adminship and who has not? Apparently, this is the job of the bureaucrats. Fair enough.

However, when 37% of voters oppose, this suggests that there is a clear lack of consensus. Forming a consensus involves convincing everyone to agree. It takes time and an openness to discussion. The b'crats could have extended the RFA to give the consensus process a chance to operate. For many people, the critical missing piece was the lack of contrition as evidenced by the absence of an apology. That could have shifted the vote towards a consensus for approval. It would have changed my vote.

--Richard 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think that describes adequately how RFA works. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But with decisions like this (and I didn't take part and don't especially care if he gets promoted or not), I don't think it's easy for anyone to figure out how RfA really works. It's not a vote count, but if you don't get 75%, you're not going to get promoted. Unless, of course, they promote you anyway due to discounting certain oppose votes. Which won't always apply if it's a close call, because they're not always going to discount votes. Not that they should in most cases because it's about a discussion, not about votes. Except that they're counting votes to get an idea. Etc etc etc until one's head explodes. If this is how RfA is supposed to work, there's little in the way of evidence to suggest that it actually has worked this way in the past. If this is not how RfA is supposed to work, then a mistake was made. Who knows? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I thought Wikipedia's decision-making processes could be described easily, I'd probably do so. But I have deliberately come up with the rather vague and gnomic "RFA is not a vote." Probably nobody knows precisely how it is "supposed" to work, except that it's supposed to ensure that trustworthy and competent people are made administrators and untrustworthy or incompetent people are not. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what it's supposed to ensure. That would mean, for example, that someone who had already abused their admin rights wouldn't easily become an admin again, right? Friday (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anybody really disputes the underlying theory; the devil, as always, is in the details. How do we determine whether someone is "untrustworthy"? By extension, "trustworthy" according to whom? And how do we reconcile the people who believe that someone is "trustworthy" with those that don't? That's what this entire mess (as well as most of the other messes that regularly seem to spring up around the edge cases of RFA) boils down to. Kirill Lokshin 20:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So Tony is saying that transparency is not necessary as long as the results come out right?

We're supposed to be mushrooms that are kept in the dark and have manure dumped on us?

This can't be right. Stop trying to make excuses for an exception. There could be far-reaching implications of trying to make general rules that justify the exception. Far better to say, "Fine. Re-adminning Carnildo was an exception that was made based on the judgment of the bureaucrats. In normal circumstances, this is how the process works... "consensus that is roughly 75-80% of legitimate voters, not counting sock-puppets". --Richard 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to describe how it should be, but how it is. It's only transparent in the sense that bureaucrats can be asked to describe the process they followed in making their decisions and will, by and large, readily respond. It isn't transparent in the sense that all decisions are made in public. Many Wikipedia activities lack such transparency. This is how it is.

"75-80% of legitimate voters" is obviously not a useful way to describe how RFA works because it implies that RFA is a vote. It isn't and I think it would be a good idea if we recognised this. --Tony Sidaway 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this makes sense, let's make it not a vote [9] Rx StrangeLove 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm including this purely for information, and I'm not expressing any view myself, but recently I happened to be reading Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay, where he stated:

For now, the generally accepted measure of consensus on adminship requests stands as 80% support as a definate consensus. When a request falls between 70% and 80%, it falls to the bureaucrat to carefully consider the views presented on both sides and make a determination. Where a request has below 70%, promotion should not occur.

There was outrage that he did not specify 75% as the cut-off. Tyrenius 06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He would probably still stand by that for first time admins. My sense is that the bar is much lower for those reapplying for the position. How low we are yet to see. Sean Black took it below 70%. This case takes it even lower. My bet is that if it is one of the favored admins it could go at least as low as 50%. However, we await the precedent case. David D. (Talk) 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Call me crazy, but if someone was de-adminned for good cause, wouldn't common sense dictate we might have higher, not lower, standards the second time 'round? We have too many bad admins as it is, so thinking that re-promoting someone who's lost the tools is "no big deal" is a bit backward, eh? The block button is easily the most dangerous admin tool, when it comes to causing needless time-wasting drama. So, inappropriate use of blocking is a damn good reason to remove someone's sysop bit, no matter what his chat room buddies say. Friday (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an odd, and to my ear curiously ugly, turn of phrase, "chat room buddies". Would you care to elaborate on your reason for choosing that term? Where is this "chat room"? Who are these "buddies"?

On your substantive point, of course a higher standard applies to reapplications. That isn't at issue. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same issue here? You seem to imply that applying a higher standard to reapplications is a no-brainer, accepted by everyone, yet here we have unusually low standards applied to this reapplication. Friday (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your principle but not with your assessment of the current situation. The bureaucrats, also, seem to disagree with your assessment; like me they see "extenuating circumstances" and accordingly exercise the Wikipedian spirit of "forgiveness and reconciliation." [10] . The bar is higher this time; Carnildo must pass a probationary period.

But who are these chatroom buddies of Carnildo's? Which chatroom does he frequent? --Tony Sidaway 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

From the point of view of RFA closings, I think that would be a hard point to argue empirically. Just going by numbers, we have never had a reapplication get more than 70% and fail. Admittedly it is a small pool, but the few borderline cases that do exist suggest a certain degree of numerical generousity has been applied to reapplications. Dragons flight 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the key problem here is that you are, as you say, going by numbers. Now you may think that RFA is a vote, but my premise here is that RFA is not a vote. It follows that other factors may count for more than popular opinion in the decision-making process for a re-application. This is born out by the announcement of the bureaucrats themselves, who mentioned extenuating circumstances, Carnildo's attitude following desysopping and a number of other factors. If you think RFA is simply a vote, well I can see why this would be problematic. My point is that the assumption doesn't see to fit the observable facts. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything magical about any RfA percentage, or the candidate's previous status. If enough bureaucrats like the candidate, 40% or even 30% might be plenty, whether or not the candidate was previously an admin. In fact, I can easily see the bcrats bypassing an RfA altogether and just giving adminship to the candidate. Whether or not that's a good idea is a matter of opinion. But that's where the process seems headed.

Under these circumstances, each RfB becomes much more important, because the bcrats have made it clear they'll promote anybody they want regardless of any RfA results. Of course, the RfB process could become equally meaningless if the current bureaucrats decide to start promoting new crats regardless of RfB results. Casey Abell 14:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My primary concern is that we say clearly how things should be done and then we do what we said should be done. I strongly dislike Tony's fuzzy notions of "Nobody really understands how it works and if we did, it would change." Very cute but it doesn't work for me. (Yes, yes, I did enjoy Douglas Adams' work but I'm not buying any of that in this context.)

I'm not sure I agree with Casey Abell or Tony Sidaway about this "RFA is not a vote" concept but let's explore it a bit.

Somewhere I read that the only job of the b'crats was to determine consensus reached by the RFA process. What Tony and Casey seem to be saying is that the b'crats make the decisions and that an RFA process is neither a sufficient nor a necessary prerequisite to adminship.

Using this approach, the purpose of the RFA process is not to decide whether the candidate should be given adminship. The purpose of the RFA process is to determine if there is a consensus to give the candidate adminship. The b'crats take this consensus or lack of consensus under advisement and use it as ONE of the decision criteria. IF they know the candidate's qualifications, they can choose to ignore the consensus (or lack thereof). If they don't know the candidate's qualifications, they may choose to rely more heavily on the result of the RFA process.

In the vast, vast majority of cases (99%+), the b'crats are unlikely to deny adminship to someone who has a clear consensus via the RFA process or to give adminship to someone who has not. However, the b'crats may choose to grant or deny adminship to anyone despite the results of the RFA process or EVEN if they have not gone through the RFA process.

Thus, using Tony and Casey's approach, Carnildo could have simply applied to a b'crat and that b'crat could have individually or in consultation with other b'crats decided to grant Carnildo adminship. Or, as actually happened, a b'crat chose to ignore the lack of consensus or supermajority and just go with the majority vote.

Using Casey's view, a b'crat could have gone ahead and granted adminship even if the vote had been 40% in favor and 55% against.

I think that proposing to make the above text be the official policy of Wikipedia will raise a lot of howls but I also believe that we look silly, petty, hypocritical (and many other negative adjectives) if we say one thing and do another. If this is really how it works, then let's say so and move on.

Question: How do the other Wikipedias do this? Surely the English Wikipedia is not the only one with this problem?

--Richard 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't said that Carnildo should have just applied to Taxman, nor do I think that's what happens or what should happen. I can't speak for Casey but I don't think he has suggested that either. All I have said, and I think it's correct, is that RFA is not a vote. What is actually is, I'm not sure any of us actually knows. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But, during the long discussion of this RFA, somebody DID suggest that Carnildo could have just applied to Taxman. I grant that it might not have been Tony or Casey. I don't have time to re-read all of the posts to figure out who it was. Suffice it to say that the suggestion IS a logical implication of saying that the result of the RFA process does not have to be honored by the b'crats. If a b'crat could promote on as little as 10%, 20% or 30% support then why couldn't he/she promote on 0% support?

Alternatively, I think Tony is saying that the RFA process IS a requirement for adminship and the b'crats should normally look for 70%+ support. However, as Casey suggests, that number is just a guideline and the support level could be as low as 50%+ or even less although this is highly unlikely.

The key issue, in my mind, is whether we need the RFA voting process or not. I would say yes but I think people need assurance that their opinions count for something. As I said before, let's say something that approximates the truth. Now, if things change in the future, so be it but, in the meantime, let's not have a huge variance between what we say we do and what we actually do.

--Richard 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The more Tony refuses to say much beyond "RfA is not a vote", the more I am inclined to trust him and Taxman and the bureaucrats in general. Adding formal rules to a process implies that trust is not enough. Mike Christie (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

True, and until recently, I'd always gotten the impression that Bcrats enjoyed a pretty high level of trust, as well they should. This recent situation has significantly eroded that trust, in the eyes of some users. I hope this is a learning experience all around. Friday (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it has emerged that a minority of editors had placed their trust in a process that turns out not to work they thought it did. I hope they will learn to trust those in whom we as a community choose to vest power. I'm sure we'd rather see a trusted human being with discretion making a decision, rather than the simple, blind, mechanical voting process that is sometimes presented, mistakenly in my opinion, as a description of how RFA works. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope they will learn to trust those in whom we as a community choose to vest power. Well, this whole discussion is about how we as a community choose to vest power in people. Did we as a community choose to vest power in Carnildo? And a voting process isn't blind and mechanical - it's the aggregation of the judgment and discretion of a lot of good people. Haukur 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I think it's obvious that we did, as a community, decide to vest Carnildo with probationary sysop power. I don't think that it's possible to sustain for a moment the argument that a vote is an aggregation of good judgement. The answers you get depend on the questions you ask. --Tony Sidaway 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, would you please explain how a decision taken by a smaller number of people (b'cats and ArbCom) to override the usual interpretation of a process participated in by a larger number of people (RfA) equate to "we did, as a community, decide". The problematic words there are "as a community". Vadder 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't argue that. I believe that is a mischaracterization of what happened by people who do not recognise the obvious: that RFA is not a vote. Beyond that I cannot say. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm just speaking for myself. I'm a lousy little exo user who has no authority within Wikipedia. I've never even voted in an RfA, and there's no way I'd ever put myself though the often nasty, brutish and long process.

Second, all I'm saying is that the determining factor in adminship is the opinion of the current bureaucrats and other Wikipedia authorities. Frankly, I think this is a clunkingly obvious statement of fact, and nobody gains anything by denying it. Ambuj Saxena failed his RfA with a far higher support percentage than Carnildo because the bcrats didn't know or care much about him. I don't think they actively disliked Saxena, but it wasn't worth the bother to give him the mop.

Third, let's have a little treacherous untrimmed truth. Carnildo was resysopped because he'll be a tiger on unsourced images. Fine, the authorities at Wikipedia have decided that unsourced images are a paramount threat to the enterprise. I personally think this is a misplaced concern, compared to our real problem: our growing reputation for almost comical inaccuracy. The Onion went after our mistakes, after all, not our pictures. That congressional candidate is thinking about suing us for libel, not copyvio.

But whatever. The higher-ups have declared war on copyvio images, and Carnildo will fight that war like nobody's business. So he gets the mop. (Sorry, I know about AGF, but if you believe the "love and forgiveness" or the "sockpuppetry" stuff, I'll sell you the Florida real estate underneath the Wikipedia servers.)

Finally, all I'm asking for is honesty. Let's just admit that the bcrats will make somebody an admin, regardless of any silly RfA results or repercussions with other users, if they think Wikipedia needs the candidate's services as an admin. Admitting this obvious fact won't kill anybody, and it will clear away a lot of hypocrisy. Casey Abell 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Casey. While I'm not 100% sure that I would throw my support behind your proposal, I think my description matches yours pretty closely. The only question left is whether the RFA process with its attendant non-binding vote is worth keeping. My description of the proposal suggested that it had value as ONE input to the b'crat's decision. ONE of possibly several inputs, including the opinions of Jimbo, ArbCom and other b'crats. The advantage to saying it this way is that people are explicitly asked to trust the b'crats and not expect that the result of the RFA vote will be the sole determinant of the final decision.

The only reason that I resist throwing my support to your proposal is that, in my heart, I really want it to be based on consensus and not on the b'crat's decision. But, if that ain't the way it is, I would rather the policy describe reality and not fantasy. --Richard 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Making the stated policy conform to reality wouldn't hurt a fly. The earth wouldn't stop spinning, the universe wouldn't collapse into a black hole, and Katie Couric wouldn't get one bit less perky. Casey Abell 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD, MFD, etc. says it's consensensus, but consensus is a vote. AFDs often have just "keep per nom". RFAs have just "support." The top of this page says, "Archived RFA votes." Text search this page for "vote" and there's a vast number of results. Anomo 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If it does turn into a vote, it should be terminated with extreme prejudice, for reasons that do not fit into the width of this paragraph. ;-) (if you're wondering, please contact me on my talk page) Kim Bruning 09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But what do you call a process that promotes someone with only 58% in favor? Surely, that's not a consensus by any stretch of the meaning of the word. Sounds like a vote to me. The only way to get this RFA process back onto the rails of being consensus-driven is for the b'crats to say "Look, this was an exception. We reserve the right to ignore consensus or the lack thereof IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES. However, in the vast majority of the RFA candidacies, we will honor the decision indicated by consensus or lack thereof." I think that's what Casey Abell and I are both saying. --Richard 09:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, 58% in favor does not supply enough data for me to make a determination. So I went and checked the carnildo request for adminship, and it's a mess, as I should have guessed. Several comments appear to be textbook examples of people opposing because he rightly took action against them.

Eeuw! Poor bureaucrat who had to close that one! :-( Kim Bruning 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Democracy or not

You are all obsessed too much by the idea that "wikipedia is not a democracy". But sometimes a decision is needed. And for such a thing a simple majority can be a valid means to finally get somewhere. If consensus starts to be like a veto right for everybody we won't get anywhere anytime. That's sclerosis. --Ligulem 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how many times this has been answered in the past? Forsooth! We need an FAQ! Kim Bruning 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought we already had one. Many in fact ;). —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I know the answer. Your answer is the problem. Or should I say your obsession? --Ligulem 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you ask the question if you already knew the answer? Though actually, consensus doesn't work like a veto right (you're confusing consensus with unanimity) --Kim Bruning 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And there is something in between: no consensus. Wikipedia is full of no consensus "solutions". That's why a lot is broken on this project. BTW, You might have gathered that I didn't ask a question.

Ok, I think I'm done with this adminship circus. Joining the majority of Wikipedians that is ignoring RfA. Bye, --Ligulem 16:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting arbitrary, "necessary" decision-making by encouraging democracy is not a good idea. —Centrx→talk • 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand Centrx's last comment. Perhaps he/she would care to elaborate.

Treating the comments of the others, it's clear from WP:CONSENSUS that a true consensus that involves unanimous agreement is rare and difficult to achieve. For this reason, we rely on supermajority which usually means something in the range of 2/3 to 3/4, sometimes even 80%. So, the past experience of RFA (75-80% support required for approval) is completely in line with what WP:CONSENSUS says. I can imagine pushing the supermajority threshold down to 66% on occasion as being justifiable in some circumstances.

However, 58% support is so clearly in the range of simple majority rather than supermajority that it is time to stop talking about consensus with respect to this particular RFA. It's clear that the b'crats decided that "this is the right thing to do" since it was Carnildo's second attempt to get re-sysopped and they decided that they didn't want to subject him to a third one. Perhaps they were convinced that he might not be able to muster a supermajority for a long time and that following process wasn't worth the delay in giving Carnildo the sysop bit back.

Supermajority as a proxy for consensus SHOULD work like a veto right. No single individual can stop the train but a significant minority of reasonable, respected Wikipedia editors should be able to. In this case, the b'crats rode roughshod over more than 70 votes, not all of whom were sock-puppets or unreasonable people who failed to examine and think about the issue.

Let's face it, the b'crats ramrodded this thing through. Maybe they were right to do it. Carnildo does need the sysop bit to do his image work and he probably won't screw up again since he'll never get the sysop bit back if he does. So we are probably better off having him do his great image work with the extra powers provided by the sysop bit. HOWEVER, this should be presented as a rare, rare exception and everybody should be advised that in the vast, vast majority of cases supermajorities of 75%+ will be required. The failure to make this clear is part of the reason why this thread won't stop. The b'crats need to "calm the masses" and only they can do it.

--Richard 18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I had hopes that we could go in the direction of Carnildo's RfA for all RfA's that follow. I hoped thus the double standard could have been eliminated. As I already wrote much further above on this page, for me an RfA like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth should have passed and not killed by an arbitray missing supermajority. Carnildo's RfA shows that a supermajority doesn't solve the problem of achieving the right decision. Carnildo's RfA should not be an exception. If you take supermajority for granted then a small number of voters can rule out a majority, which obviously in the Carnildo case would have been wrong. I say it is wrong in a lot of cases too. Get away with that stupid supermajority requirement and make a intelligent decision when closing. I think Taxman is on a good way. But only if we can have this new standard on all RfA's following. If it was an exception for Carnildo's RfA, then it was a gross error. In that sense I think the anti-democratic means of a supermajority on RfA's is wrong. A supermajority is not democratic. Not for admin selections. A supermajority for destructive questions like the dissolution of an association is ok. But supermajorities for constructive questions like candidate acceptance for a job is wrong. --Ligulem 21:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm starting to re-evaluate my position (which was "keep supermajority as a key promotion criterion and consider Carnildo's RFA to be an exception to the rule"). Ligulem is arguing that, going forward, all that will be required for an RFA to succeed is a simple majority. And, if we incorporate Kim Bruning's comment about people who voted for being the subject of legitimate action by Carnildo, that simple majority discounts sock puppets and any other vote whose rationale is suspect. This will, according to Ligulem, make it easier for the b'crats to "do the right thing".

I'm going to think about this for a bit before I throw my support behind it but I will say that I certainly like this approach better than Tony Sidaway's "RFA is not a democratic vote" approach. That approach suggests that the b'crats could promote in the face of a majority vote against. Ligulem's approach seems a bit less radical. If I understand what Ligulem is proposing, a majority vote is still necessary. The only thing that changes is that we lose the requirement for a supermajority.

--Richard 03:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Another solution?

Instead of all this choosing one side or another, can't we just leave the answer to the "Is RFA a vote?" question deliberately vague and unanswered? We cannot really say that it is a vote, like what Tony Sidaway said, but nor can we truthfully say that this is not a vote. It's only a suggestion. --physicq210 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting vs Consensus (Archive 68)

The discussion above started by Tony is IMO going off track for these comments so apologies for the new section heading but I wanted to make this obvious. Fair enough RFA is not a vote but it aint consensus either - apart from anything else consensus IS a vote :D something many people dont seem to realise. let me explain. The dictionary definition of consensus is:

majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
general agreement or concord; harmony.

I think that last one is my strongest proof, RFA sure aint harmony - just take a look at the months of discussion on this page for one thing. The first point though is my point about voting, majority implies the backing of a proposal / idea / choice by the majority of people. Now im sorry but is that not a vote? Ok so it is not just a vote, consensus IMO brings 2 extra things to the ideas of a straw poll (the simplest form of voting). Firstly it brings a higher margin for majority, something like 75 - 80%, to pass a motion and secondly it allows for the discussion and changing of votes over time. Regardless of definition my point is nothing is cut and dried - many people will disagree with this I expect - and that instead of arguing over 'this is a vote' or 'this is not a vote' we should try and work out how we can improve or change this process. The name doesnt matter after all but the process does and I think this is something we are losing site of. Opines? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing some important points: First, when we say "consensus" we mean the Wikipedia definition not the dictionary one. Discussion means much more than voting with discussion and the ability to change your mind. In particular it means that:

If one person makes a well-evidenced, rational argument and 100 people simply shout "nay" without providing reasoned or supported arguments, the "howling mob" does not get to shout down the reasoned voice
The reputation of the person making the argument can be taken into account, so that established editors with track records of good judgement can't get shouted down by sockpuppets
If late in the process an editor turns up conclusive evidence that wasn't available earlier and the other contributors didn;t have time to consider before the debate ends, that too can override simple numbers for and against

These are incredibly powerful notions, as long as those who make the closing decision can weigh these factors well. Gwernol 12:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply :D Ah so now your talking about weighted voting! I agree that is what it is :D Although I see where you arte coming from with points 1 and 3 so I suppose my interpretation falls down too. I still wouldnt agree it is consensus though - however I do think there are some opposing points to what you say that need consideration.

How many times does 1 person alone make well reasoned arguments - in alot of cases there are 2 or more reasons on either side of the argument. So what happens then? We have to make a choice between which argument is the most swaying - the consensus is then based on which rationale wins most 'support' (if that makes sense). Essentially it comes back to a vote again. How many times have you seen an RFA (for example) where every vote has a different rationale or where there is only one person with a rationale - they are extremes :D/
Reputation is a hard thing to judge, obviously users who register the day before and have made no edits except for their !vote are suspect - or of lesser standing. But what if an RFA was flooded with support votes from a load 1 week old users who have come across the applicant and been helped by them (again as an example) do you ignore their votes? No because there are many of them with the same opinion builds a good rationale - even if they dont explain it well. Conversly what if only one new user votes in this way, does he get ignored? Probably because it is one guy and his opinion obviously doesnt count.

I guess I am not trying to ridicule the procedure here but I am trying to say things are not as simple as they seem. I just want people to try and move away from the refusal to use the word voting and just say: vote if you want, build consensus if you want just make sure everyone is happy with it and it is in the interests of the project.

Most of all (and this is a slight change of direction) we need proper guidelines for what is notable / fair for inclusion in a RFA !vote and what is not (eg: I would be in favour of setting a discussed limit for edit counts and time on the project before some one can run for RFA and thereafter discount votes based on edit count criteria!). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right: I was simplifying the examples to make my point clear. You are of course right that the world is rarely if ever that clear cut. There are indeed often reasoned arguments on both (or multiple) sides, and it takes a skilled adjudicator to make the call between them. But again, it comes down to the merit of the arguments, not the simple volume of them. I also agree with your point about weighing reputation. Personally, I'm against automatically ignorning votes from editors with very few (or no) previous edits. Sometimes they make valid points that should be taken into account. A good adjudicator will understand and weigh both reputation and merit of argument at the same time. If a newbie makes a strong case with good basis in policy then their voice should be heard as loudly as an established user who just says "me too" (or "per nom", if you like). However this weighing process is not in any meaningful sense a "vote", which is why we says we don't vote on Wikipedia.

I personally disagree with setting defined guidelines on admin eligability for RfA, but that's a whole different debate that we really ought to save for another occasion :-) (see the archives if you're really interested in my views on this topic) Best, Gwernol 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A process like that is theoretically possible but it's certainly not what happened here; there was no conclusive evidence available too late, the reputations of editors on both sides were about as good, both sides used reasoning and supported arguments and the reasoning of the opposers seems to have been more detailed than that of the supporters. I, for example, voted for Carnildo with the three word statement "Need more admins." Haukur 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have very deliberately not made any comment on the Carnildo situation, in any forum. I was simply pointing out that these are some of the reasons why a debate might be concluded in a way that is radically different than a simple vote count. I am making the case for why we don't vote at Wikipedia in the abstract, just as Tmorton166 was making the case for voting. I will note that you often see AfD's closed out with reasoning along the lines I've given. Best, Gwernol 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

need more adims', is a good example. There is good rationale so the vote stands and counts against others - but the decision still has to be made by the closing crat over wether the voters opinion that we need more admins is valid. You could argue that the votes that mention specific reasons why the nominee should not be an admin have better rationale but what about the silent argument behind that vote - the voter is saying I would trust this person to be a good admin and believe we need more admins so: support. The decision is very difficult. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple question on counting heads (Archive 68)

I'd like to get some feedback on whether or not people agree with this: "After accounting for sockpuppets, trolls, and new users, etc, there should be some minimum standard of community support, expressed by a raw percentage of votes, below which an RFA should be expected to fail." Back when Cecropia was closing the majority of RFAs, he adopted a nearly inviolate standard of 75%. Now I feel that the current bureaucrats are quietly changing things to reflect their views of how RFA should be run. I don't believe RFA policy should be decided by bureaucrats, but rather should reflect the consensus of the community and then merely be implemented by the bureaucrats. So, I'd like to ask the community, should there be some numerical threshold below which RFAs are expected to fail? Dragons flight 05:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe there should be some minimal numerical standard (maybe different for the returning admins, maybe over-writable for the special cases, etc.). If we do not have the standard we are bound to have a debacle for each RFA between 50 and 90% of support. At any case we just simply can not have such sweeping changes to the essential for the entire project process by a decision of a few editors, or even by a decision of a the WT:RFA crowd - there should be community consultation abakharev 07:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is false, as demonstrated by the entire history of RFA. There has never been a codified numerical standard, yet 99% of RFAs have occurred entirely without incident, and certainly without 'debacle'. — Dan | talk 07:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Every time on top of the RfA there was the phrase about 75-80% consensus (that almost always was read as the 75% consensus after discounting socks). That was held almost religiously for the past 1.5 years that I am here. Every time the 75% was violated there was a debacle. abakharev 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize that mine is not among the opinions you're looking for, but I disagree strongly with the notion that there should be any required numerical standard. Despite my great respect for Cecropia, I fear that his having adopted an inviolate standard has led in large part to our present situation, in which a certain "RFA crowd" of users who frequent this page control the outcome of all but the most high-profile nominations (which tend to differ only because they attract much outside attention). This means that qualified users' nominations fail on trivial or irrelevant bases. I fear, further, that to codify this standard would lead to more politicization, more cliquishness, and more spite; even the most absurd of objections (not enough edit summaries!), if expressed by enough people, could sink a nomination. Call me biased if you will; I am certain that I would hold the same opinion were I not a bureaucrat. — Dan | talk 07:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The labels "trivial" and "irrelevant" are a bit subjective though; this might lend to the notion that there needs to be a specific set of standards outlined by the community for the closing 'crats to follow, whether it be numeric or otherwise hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A specific set of standards? "Must have been editing for x months; must have written y featured articles; must have been in fewer than z edit wars"? I'm having a hard time imagining any way to make this an objective process. The existence of bureaucrats is a testament to its necessary subjectivity. The current system is full of people who apply a bunch of arbitrary objective standards to every candidate; the results of this practice are unimpressive. — Dan | talk 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're opinion is more than welcome here. My concern is with bureaucrats making changes without consulatation with the community; bureaucrats who want to talk through the issues are more than welcome. The crux of the issue with your argument is how does one know whether or not the "trivial and irrelevant" arguments advanced by the "RFA crowd" are representative of what the community at large really does care about? If a bureaucrat simply disregards arguments that he doesn't agree with, then we might as well not have RFA since only bureaucrat opinions would have any determining value. My feeling is that if we are going to poll the community, then at some point we have to be willing to accept the opinions expressed in that poll even if we feel they are ass-backwards. The alternative is authoritarian and disrespectful to those same people that were solicited for their opinions. Dragons flight 07:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My worry is that the comments and positions accumulated on a nomination after its week has expired are not reflective of community opinion, but merely of the opinion of the subset of the community which watches RFA closely. I would be greatly disappointed were the standards of this crowd -- which are based on superficial evaluations of each candidate, most commonly on one or several numbers or lengths of time, rather than on acquaintance with his editing habits or a serious consideration of his suitability -- truly reflective of the community's standards for administrators. Being an occasional optimist, I prefer to assume that the community is more sensible than it looks on RFA; or perhaps that, if RFA participants were less lazy, they would take the time to consider each candidate more carefully, and make thence a truly reasoned decision. — Dan | talk 07:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA is open to all, and while there's obviously seventy or so users that consistently participate in the RfA process, there's about a million other Wikipedians that are welcome to participate but simply choose not to or are unaware of RfA. If RfA is becoming this big deal, then perhaps it should be more visible within the larger community? Furthermore, in regards to poor evaluations by the usual particpators, that's a matter of opinion. Each Wikipedian has the right to participate in RfA however he/she wants and also has the right for his/her comments to be respected and factored in hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, then, we disagree somewhat fundamentally. I find it ridiculous to suggest that any user, on a complete whim, can leave an uninformed comment on an RFA (oppose: didn't follow the absurdly complicated instructions well enough!) and expect it to recieve as much consideration as the opinion of a user who has conducted a thorough study of the candidate before leaving a comment. — Dan | talk 07:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that some amount of experience and familiarity with the project is an essential prerequisite to trusting a candidate with adminship. Some commentators use strange shortcuts (e.g. not enough WT edits) to evaluate that experience, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the underlying concern. If an RFA is full of such comments then one needs to seriously consider that the community does feel that candidate lacks the necessary experience even if the way the argument is presented seems trite or silly. Dragons flight 08:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In such situations, though, we must trust that each user is not just following the majority without doing any research on the user. Michael 08:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael has put his finger on one of the largest problems with taking votes at face value. Do you trust every user to evaluate independently? I certainly do not. — Dan | talk 08:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that RFAs are forum for discussion, and there is only a finite supply of evidence, we certainly must expect that opinions build on each other. At the same time, we don't want people to uncritically parrot the arguments of others. But how do you tell if someone is just parrotting versus someone who looks at the same set of evidence and reaches the same conclusion? Good faith argues for putting more weight on the latter than the former. Dragons flight 08:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that two types of opposition opinions on RfAs are being lumped together here. In one case, we have opinions which are uninformed and/or incorrect. In the other, we have opinions which the bureaucrats (or at least Dan) find to be irrelevant. These are not the same type of opinion. Certainly a vote should be discounted if an opposed says "Oppose: Been here just 3 weeks" when in fact the nominee has been around for more than a year. That is an obvious case of course. In less obvious cases I would expect some deliberation to be done before the vote is discounted, with some cases not having the vote discounted. In the situation where it is something that a bureaucrat finds to be "irrelevant", I take great, great issue. Each and every user here who is an editor in good standing is entitled to an opinion on what constitutes a nominee they feel would make a good admin. If bureaucrats attempt to throttle opinions that exist outside of their personal interpretation of what is and is not a valid criteria for adminship, the possibility of RfA evolving to accomodate future situations is removed. Furthermore, that a bureaucrat can willfully disregard the opinion of an editor in good standing is simply put, appalling. Bureaucrats are put into position to exercise the will of the community, not to judge what is and is not allowed as the will of the community. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats says that bureaucrats "are bound by policy and current consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community". If an editor in good standing says "Oppose: No featured article writing" or some other oppose based on criteria the bureaucrat finds distasteful, it is NOT in their authority to disregard this wish of the editor in question, and by extension the community. Any bureaucrat who does so is overstepping their bounds. Either exercise the will of the community or develop a set of standards that bureaucrats follow and remove community input from the decision. --Durin 13:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything is relative. From a user point of view, if someone describes he would be using the tools to fight vandalism, XFD, speedied things, etc, the 1FA—no matter if it is stated by SimonP or Masssiveego—is a weak oppose when compared to someone who points the user does not warn vandals or that he is not using summaries. -- ReyBrujo 14:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It supports the point Durin is trying to make, I think, to say that 1FA is if anything a stronger opposition basis than not warning vandals or not using edit summaries. As an indication of policy knowledge, 1FA provides much greater insight than either of the other considerations. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear; I don't support 1FA as being a requirement for being an administrator. There are plenty of ways in which people can contribute to the project without ever touching featured articles. Developing a stub into a significant non-stub is every bit as important as turning an article into a featured article. My point is that bureaucrats should not be in the position of deciding what is and what is not a valid criteria for people to vote in support or opposition. If we're to do that, we should simply draw up a list of standards agreed upon by the bureaucrats and have a check off list to see whether the candidates pass. Such a system would see vociferous opposition, because it is antithetical to the community nature of the project. Things is, what the bureaucrats have done of recent is in effect exactly that, just done so more or less silently. --Durin 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think 1FA is exceptionally useful either. My point was merely that opinions as to what standards carry more weight may differ significantly from person to person. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Durin is right. Dan's analysis amounts to this: RfA is effectively useless. I don't know how else to read his comments. If that is the feeling—and without agreeing or disagreeing—we should consider scrapping it, increasing the number of crats, and having admins appointed based on intra-crat discussion and an answer-response session. Clerks could weed out bogus, or obviously-going-to-fail nominations to decrease the workload.

IMO BTW, I think 1FA is very useful indeed. Practically it may not implementable, but the quality of the main space would improve immensely if all of the people who rush to RfA at 3 mos + 1 day were forced to substantially improve an article first. Marskell 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While there are important points above, I'd like to get more feedback on the point raised at the beginning: Should there be a numerical level at which RFAs are expected to fail? Many of the comments seem consist with the idea that there should be, but only a few people have been explicit about it. Dragons flight 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm. Maybe an alternative before answering? I would like first to call the hand of the people who are denigrating this process. Dan says "The current system is full of people who apply a bunch of arbitrary objective standards to every candidate". OK, what's better? If there is something better, let's consider it. If not, yes, let's definitely have a numerical standard and let's respect it. It shouldn't be "community consensus—sort of..." Your own edit to Front matter, while a compromise, essentially amounts to that. Crats will exercise discretion... Based on what? Racial and gender quotas? Coin tosses? The process can be essentially dictatorial (which is OK, because wiki is not a democracy) or essentially democratic (which is OK, because wiki is not not a democracy) but it must be defined either way before properly answering your question. Marskell 19:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cecropia was the first bureaucrat who adhered strictly to a 75% minimum. It was never decided by the community. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the bureaucrats need to come up with a presentation to the people here at RfA as to exactly what their intentions are for managing RfA. Alternatively, the community needs to develop similar for what they expect the bureaucrats to do. Right now, the picture is very unclear. There will be considerable debate about this extending into future controversial RfAs until this is ironed out. I'm not suggesting hard numbers, just a clearer position on what RfA and how it is managed. If this had been done before Carnildo's RfA, the raucous debate about his RfA would not have happened. Let's not have another Carnildo RfA. Let's get this cleared up. Sooner the better. --Durin 13:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Making the outcome clearer. (Archive 69)

While we all saw this isn't a vote, its historically been treated as one. I propose that we elminate, or at least restrict "no-consensus" closes, and require a clear pass or fail in all but truely deadlocked cases.

The way this would work is that the RFA would remain open at least to its full term, and after that would be closed only when thresholds for passing or failing have been reached. No-consensus closes would be possible after either a week without further comment, or after 30 days of comment without reaching the thresholds for passing or failing.

Thoughts? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would give people a chance to come back and review the discussion, which many people don't seem to do at the moment. A consensus can often take longer to emerge because many candidates are not known to the people who take part. Stephen B Streater 07:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please. — Werdna talk criticism 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A longer relist period? This seems to be a simple improvement that would help and which it might be possible to get the community to support. One caveat is that if it does drift to a threshold, the 'crats shouldn't close it immediately but wait maybe a day to see if it drifts back to no consensus. --ais523 09:51, 22 September 2006 (U T C)

And of course we'd have endless debate about what thresholds constitute "consensus". Nice idea, but it doesn't address the core issue that we all dance around as to what consensus means in this context. --Durin 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- User:Geogre/RFA-Derby has some (possibly radical) ideas on the topic. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I'm assuming that you would use >80% = consensus, but what would be fail? <70% ? Themindset 19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And there begins the endless debate on what constitutes consensus, as predicted :) --Durin 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. As long as the margin is wide enough that we give a definitive answer, rather than "no consensus". 80% might be a little high. I'd be inclined to say 75% or even 70%. I've rarely if ever seen anything but a fail with under 60% though. I'm still watching some of the alternatives also though - doing away with voting altogether would be preferable. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we go forward with this for now with the guidance to 'crats that either overwhelming support or widespread opposition are required to close an RFA (in otherwords the same rough thresholds they use now), and refine this as we go? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No. --Durin 12:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then what's wrong with this? What harm does it cause? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(further response to Durin). I really don't see major changes happening to RFA, so the only real way to fix it is to make small changes and see how they work. I consider this to be little more than a proceedural change. I don't think it fixes the entire process, although it would definantely improve the workings of that process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientific and Emotional judging and bureaucrat intervention (Archive 72)

Personally, I feel that the biggest peeve about RfA is the inconsistency in the support/oppose patterns of people who participate in RfA. People have varying standards/interpretations, much like in cricket or football, the different umpires and referees have different positions in the spectra : Some will give a 50-50 offside call to the attacking team, some will give it to the defending team; some are hard and cynical on players diving, some give more penalties; some regulate more and hand out more cards and free kicks, some have a laissez-faire. Personally I do not mind people having their own high standards or low standards, but the most annoying thing is how some "judges" apply one rule to certain people, a softer rule for others, or a harder rule for some others. I feel every candidate should be equal before every "jurist" even though the jurists have different standards among themselves. It irritates me when I see (eg.) people oppose saying "only 3 months" or "not enough mainspace edits" [say 1000 maybe], and then when some "cute" candidate or their friend comes along and they get passed with 100 votes at 90%+ when they perhaps only have 3 months or sometimes 500-700 edits, despite other users being stopped with a higher bar. The reverse also happens when some "ugly duckling" candidate (who most likely is introverted and does not have a following) comes along and people start finding some rather idiosyncratic and minor imbalance in the editing pattern and they get a lot of opposes. One of the wikipedians I admire most, User:Sam Vimes appeared to have this problem - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2 - it was running 9/11, but after some rebuttal, there was a 59/8 streak and he scraped home...

Complaints from about 4 jurists that Sam was focussed mainly on one area - cricket

This is the case for most people actually, that they focus on only one topic. In this case Sam also wrote some other stuff on Winter Olympics, Speedway and Handball, and over a wide historical range. A lot of people cruise through editing only one type of music genre, the geography/history of one country,etc, and have no problem. Many other people don't actually edit any topic at all, doing dabs and CVU and other stuff with automated tools rather than human initiative and nobody notices. Some folks only have 500 small edits, yet pass easily.

2-3 Complaints that he had only 170 article talk edits and 480 WP edits

I searched many RfAs where the candidate had 100 talk and 200 WP edits (excluding Esperanza edits, which don't count), yet passed almost unanimously because the user has a "cuteness" aura which appears to allow them to be passed unnnoticed, including some who demonstrated that they had no knowledge of the deletion policy whatsoever.

Complaints about not warning vandals

This is valid I guess, but to receive about 12 on this matter is quite a lot, as it is not a policy violation, or bad beahaviour. There have been people who are also slack with this but they do not attract such criticism.

As such, this was a grey zone RfA and was close to failing when it never should have been in doubt, although luckily it was salvaged. Personally in these cases, I would like the bureaucrats to take the "jurists"' track record into account when there is an unclear RfA, because although they express themselves in good faith, there is widespread sentimentalism and a lack of scientificness in the consistency of one's own standards being applied to editors, rather than whether they meet the criteria or not. This is not a comment about civility as a criteria for RfA, it is not a comment on appropriate criteria at all - it is simply a comment about the need for all candidates to be judged fairly with respect to another candidate by the given "judge". At the moment there is a lot less fairness here than even in "sport" like F1 and boxing where some judges and stewards appear to maximise the chances of certain candidates. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like the bureaucrats to be more pro-active in taking into account candidacies where a user has been either let off the hook compared or been over-scrutinised in such cases. What do people think about this? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think that there's somewhat of a "charisma" or "popularity" criterion that most people have, but no one talks about. If people know your name, there's a higher chance that more people will support you unconditionally. If people haven't seen you before, they're more likely to root around for a reason to oppose. Bureaucrat intervention looks good on paper, but I fear that RfA is too subjective a process for that to work effectively. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely like to see more objectivity in RfA, and less blind support for popular but unqualified candidates, and vice-versa. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is unconscious, not a thing where someone actively thinks about taking "popularity" into account, but a lot of people (humanl nature) will simply support some candidate because the said person said something nice to them, or socialised with them previously, irrespective of skill deficiency - and vice versa. In a case where this is close I would simply like the bureaucrat to take this into account (like weak/strong oppose/support) by checking the recent RfA standards employed by the voters. RfA is subjective in that people have different standards, (which is a separate issue), but I would like the 'crats to check the consistency of the judges individually, as every judge should be consistent with his/her standards in fairness to all candidates, even though every judge has different standards. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your idea of bureaucrats comparing how "jurists" comment on rfa's of different candidates for (a lack of) consistency sounds reasonable. But if that's going to happen the way you suggest it, we need >10 more 'crats. And not lazy ones, either. Picaroon9288 02:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one does RfB anymore, and the ones that do don't succeed. But that's another rant. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with making 'crats judge which people's standards are and are not appropriate to enforce consistency, is that it assumes there is an objective standard to measure other people's standards by. >Radiant< 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- As Radiant points out, you are solving one problem by simply moving it somewhere else. Themindset 21:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

- - I appear to not have made myself well understood. There are many people who have different personal criteria/expecations - I do not want to get in the way of judging what is a legitimate criteria. What I am looking for is for a bureaucrat, in a close RfA, to inspect the "judges" to see if a given "judge" is applying their expectations consistently. What I pointed out above is that some "unfashionable" candidates are having little things scrutinised a lot more than some other candidates, by the same "judge" who let people through with lower standards. What I mean is the cases in which some guy gets opposed for "only 90% edit summary", "only 2000 article edits" or only "4 months service" be Judge A when Judge A has consistently supported other people with 85% edit summary, 1000 article edits or 3 months service. and Vice versa. This would dampen out the effect of subconsious psychological effects which result in "popular" candidates being judged more softly and obscure candidates being judged more softly. I am not in favour of dictating what is a valid criteria, just in favour of moderating a given judge relative to himself so that all candidates get the same fair go under the same judge. I know that different judges have different opinions and I respect that. It's just that in real life sport, for example, the judge/umpire/ref have a split-second to decide and often in a close call, favour the "big-name" candidate - even the best officials. In sport where we have a TV replay umpire, the calls are fair (almost always). In RfA we have a week. I feel that a "judge" (ie user), should be expected to apply their standards consistently for all users - I don't have intention to judge what is appropriate criteria. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself here? Reality check: Bureacrats must now evaluate the contributions of every single voter in light of previous RfA's? That's a totally unrealistic responsibility to give to anyone. The average RfA would take several hours to close, dozens of hours on particularly well-frequented votes. People should be able to regulate their own voting behaviour without forcing a bureacrat nanny on them. --tjstrf 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. Only one or two RfAs per week are in the close zone where there would be a big difference. The fact is that some people choose not to regulate their vote and unconsciously will not "judge" candidates consistently, or perhaps want RfA to become a beauty contest. It would take no more than 3-4 hours per week to analyse the close ones and we can always get more 'crats onboard if we feel that there is too much work. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bureacrats should not have the responsibility to (nor are they imo qualified to) judge whether an individual's standards are being kept consistently, and it would be an horrendous drag for them to do so. Case by case judgment is a positive thing, blanket standards are negative as they do not allow exceptions for those who we are willing to trust due to our personal knowledge of their behaviours or excellent ratings by others that we would trust. --tjstrf 01:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What the hell???? (Archive 74)

Could someone please explain to me how on earth someone got to be an admin with these votes (112/71/11)? 84.64.75.86 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nepotism.... Juppiter 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll bite, who are you referring to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your inner voices are right this time; those are the Carnildo 3 numbers. -- nae'blis 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I figured either that or Sean Black, I couldn't remember which. Moving on... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They are NOT votes - ok, big bold text is over, but seriously, they're not -- Tawker 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking this as a good-faith question, let's just say that the matter received a certain amount of attention at the time, and this scenario is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. Newyorkbrad 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, was this just before my time or was I not paying attention? Either way, I smell gossip... can we have a link? --Robdurbar 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a link would be lovely. Even if the case is closed, it'd still be nice. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bureacrats are allowed to judge consensus and arguments in RfAs the same way admins can judge consensus in AfDs. In this case, they judged the oppose arguments as trivial. It's that simple. For more detailed coverage, see the RfA talk page. --tjstrf talk 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I might add that the closing bureacrat discussed the resolution of the situation with several others, and that he himself became a bureacrat with a near-unanimous consensus, 94/3/1. There is no reason to question his credentials. --tjstrf talk 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also taking these as good-faith questions, I see no need to be mealy-mouthed about it, or to deny the questioners their share of the gossip. This is where the matter went: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Enjoy. Bishonen | talk 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

I hate rehashing old issues like this, but if someone makes sysop with those 'numbers', why didn't Ambuj Saxena? Just asking, mind, not complaining. riana_dzasta 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If it happened once and cause a large dispute, what makes you think it should happen a second time? (Radiant) 10:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Was that in response to me, Radiant? If so, I'm not trying to cause a dispute, at all - got better things to do with my time here :) riana_dzasta 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably because Ambuj does not have powerful friends? Just a thought. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see Bishonen has linked to the 'Giano' ArbCom case. That deals more with the aftermath and later events following the 'Carnildo' promotion. I believe there is an actual ArbCom case about Carnildo somewhere, where the Arbs have discussed some other specifics about the case. I eventually tracked it down (couldn't remember the name of the case) by using the index of involved parties (see here). Look down that list for Carnildo, and you'll find the case that led to his de-sysopping. I thought ArbCom were actually intending to recast the re-promotion of Carnildo as 'something they could have done as an adjunct to this case' (ie. overturn their de-sysopping of Carnildo), thus not requiring Bureaucrats to make the judgment of a hotly contested RfA. At least that is the impression I get over how such cases might be handled in the future.

Oh, and thanks to whoever restored the thread. If it does generate too much heat, can someone please announce their intention to archive it, and then properly archive the discussion, rather than just remove it from the page. Removing and/or archiving discussion was one of the things that escalated things last time. Carcharoth 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

However, note this finding, and the related evidence. (Radiant) 11:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want my view? Giano 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a rhetorical question. Carcharoth 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is closed. Briging it up here will not make a difference. Please keep this talk page free from older discussions that have no value right now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2 (Archive 75)

Is there a reason this is not being closed for the better part of a day already? - crz crztalk 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a !vote, but am not sure if that is OK after the 'deadline' has passed. Regarding the closure point, I would have thought that borderline cases would be allowed to run further to allow a consensus to develop one way or the other, but the proper way to do this would be to have a bureaucrat officially extend the closure date so that people can see how many more days are left. If this was done, I would then add my comments and !vote. Carcharoth 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NB. 4 support votes added after the 'deadline' and 3 oppose votes added after the 'deadline' (as of the 61/17/4 tally. Carcharoth 03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA lottery... - crz crztalk 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am running for RFB. Right now... :) - crz crztalk 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, seems like an unfortunate coincidence, with all Bureaucrats absent for most of the day. Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline). The only "problem" is that, at this time tomorrow, I'm not going to be here to close it, but I'm sure Essjay or Taxman can do it, and I don't think that it would be fair to close now, in light of the present situation. Hopefully, this will be enough to patch this up. Redux 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm... If it was above the traditional approval range at closing and is now within traditional range - how does leaving it open longer for more RfA Russian Rulette make sense? I don't understand. Please gauge the consensus - as of now or as of yesterday - and close it already. - crz crztalk 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The extension seems fair because the RfA was left open for a significant amount of time past the original deadline, and during this time, several people participated, impacting the outcome. And it is a fact that when a RfA is overdue, but not officially extended, that can have a very real impact on people's decision to participate. In this case, it seems to be a necessary remedy, in light of the circumstances surrounding the end of this RfA.
But furthermore, RfAs runs until a Bureaucrat closes it. Unfortunately, there was nobody to close it sooner, and a close call became even closer — and it is a very close call. Particularly, it caught my eye that there had been no opposition since the 24th, and then on the 27th, several new ones rolled in, most of them after the original deadline, dropping the support consensus to 78%; as well as that the number of supporters in the last day also picked up again. This makes it a very close call, and since activity picked up during the last day (and in fact, past the original closing), it should be helpful to allow the community extra time to develop consensus. Redux 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me. I'll go and add my !vote now. Thanks. Carcharoth 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I support it. In fact, I wish RfAs that were in the "margin of discretion" were extended more often than they are, in the interest of gaining a better idea of community consensus. If there's no traffic for days, sure it makes sense to close it, but it's a discussion not a horse race. :) -- nae'blis 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hour extension incorrectly implemented

Um, the proposed 24-hour extension "as of now" (ie. 03:40 28 November 2006) seems to have been incorrectly implemented by Redux. The extension should have been to around 03:40 on 29 November, not the 28 November. See this edit here (which granted a 1 minute extension, not a 24 hour extension). This is particularly unfortunate because the original reason for the extension was partially to avoid the "the deadline's passed, I won't vote" effect. I only noticed this when looking at the summary at WP:BN. Possibly another 24-hour extension from when this is corrected might be needed, though that could be incredibly messy. I also note that Redux said he won't be around tommorow, so I'm going to leave a note at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard as well. Carcharoth 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As it's clearly a mistake and the crat's intention is known, surely someone else can just correct the date? --Tango 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, but at the time it still wasn't clear which way the RfA would swing (it looks clearer now). If I'd spotted the mistake a few minutes after it happened, I would have corrected it, but this was a few hours after the event. Also any actions that could impact on a close RfA (even if the action is technically correct) tend to get examined with a microscope. I left a notice at WP:AN and WP:BN, and seeing as no admin or bureaucrat responded if seems no-one else was WP:BOLD enough either. If I could have done this differently, I'd appreciate any advice. At the moment, as I've been accused of incivility and lack of good faith on the RfA page, I'm going to keep out of it (other than to correct a minor misunderstanding). I would appreciate some indication from others as to whether I went too far with my comments on the RfA, where I drew attention to what I thought was inappropriate behaviour by crz. Carcharoth 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for bringing it up. Sorry about the mixup; in my time zone, it was still the 27th when I edited the RfA... Redux 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As Carcharoth requested, I'll clarify that it would have been perfectly fine for anyone to fix the date slip. As Tango mentioned, it was a clear, honest mistake (caused by the time zone thing), and the actual intention was clear to see (to grant a 24-hour extension from the time of my post). Redux 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your doing a great job Redux, crats can use discretion and make mistakes. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from my initial post (which was only pointing out the mistake and saying that it was unfortunate in context, not judging the action), I agree. Next time I spot something like this, I'll correct it. The other reason (in addition to the ones mentioned above) that I didn't correct the mistake was because I had read about this during the recent Doug Bell RFA. :-) Carcharoth 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling what Doug did there vandalism is a blatent misuse of the term vandalism. It did not look like a bad faith edit that set off the whole thing hehe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the obsession with %%?

Hold on a second here, what's with the obsession over a couple of percentage points? This is an exercise to determine consensus, not snout counting. There is not (and should not be) a firm number to apply to determine passing requests, otherwise we might as well remove any fantasy that this is not a vote. It should not matter if supports are at 78% or 80%, there should be enough data for a 'crat to close it just fine as is. The only reason I bring this up is that the above discussion seems to place an irresponsible emphasis (well intentioned as it may be) on refined numbers with clearly implied thresholds that should not exist. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the concern is that it is very near the point where historically failure is close. Of course it is not a vote, but it is a close race. I agree that the numbers need not be overemphisized. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rough thresholds should exist - but the problem is that the perceived difference in the voting within the 12 hours after scheduled end - 81% to 78% - is too silly for words. It's within margin of error, within margin of sanity. The two or three extra votes did not change anything in the picture, did not deliver any powerful new arguments, no new diffs, no new nothing. I don't care if crats close it adversely to my nominee - that's fine - but I continue to protest against the senseless extension. Please do not penalize Kafziel for my opinion! Thanks. - crz crztalk 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The extension makes perfect sense to me. People were voting, and other people were not voting becuase it was past due. This creates a disparity, the solution is to officially extend the deadline and remove the abiguity. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC is right. The extension should be purely because it was not closed on time and people continued voting and discussing. It might help if there was a clear statement from the bureaucrats on what happens when a close RfA is not closed on time. Carcharoth 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a "clean the slate" RfA. By this, I mean that a fair number of users have identified an issue that concerns them (civility in this case). If this RfA fails and the candidate addresses these concerns over the next few months, the next RfA will pass overwhelmingly. Although Wikipedia:Consensus != Consensus, it does seem that the way to achieve general agreement here is to close the current RfA as "no consensus", address the issues brought up by opposers over the next 2-3 months, and then start another RfA. SuperMachine 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So go oppose it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with crat decisionmaking. - crz crztalk 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I did oppose it (weakly). I was pointing out that the opposition in the RfA is based on recent behavior that some considered to be uncivil or combative. If these concerns were addressed over the next few months, I believe there would be overwhelming support in the future. If the idea is to achieve some sort of general agreement that Kafziel should be an admin, this would be the way. I do realize that RfA operates more on the basis of achieving a certain threshold of support (which Kafziel may or may not have reached). SuperMachine 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Supermachine, what does your comment have to do with the Bureaucratic closing process of an RfA? Also, how does closing an 80% supported RfA "achieve general agreement"? It seems to give the 20% opposers an inordinate amount of weight beyond that already imbued by the process. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My comment was merely a suggestion on how a general agreement might be reached. It wasn't directed specifically at bureaucrats, I was basically just "throwing it out there". Seems there's a lot of tension surrounding this RfA, so maybe it's best for me to just stay out of this. SuperMachine 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The opposes would only have undue weight if it was closed as failed, but if it does not succeed with such high numbers it will likely be no consensus, which would be accurate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the RfA was extended because the %age changed by a few points, rather that it was changing quite quickly. The idea was that in 24 hours, it could change by a few more points, and that would take it below the point where it can reasonably succeed. --Tango 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the focus on % is to some extent driven by the nice pretty colours seen on the summary at WP:BN. I like those colours, but if they act as red rags to bulls, attracting people to RfAs for the wrong reason, then the colours may need to go. Bureaucrats and others can see the numbers without needed colour prompts. Carcharoth 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, everyone. Since the extension I granted has somewhat divided the opinions, I thought it would be best if someone else closed this RfA — I thought I wasn't even going to be here, but as it turned out, I am, but won't close it. I've managed to get a hold of Warofdreams, and I've asked him to take care of this. He should be closing the RfA as soon as it expires (again). I hope this is satisfactory to all. Redux 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this so well. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The crats blew it

I am in mourning over the ludicrous treatment bestowed upon Kafziel. RfAs deteriorate. Every one that has non-trivial opposition does. My second one did. So does every other one. It's an empirical fact: given enough time, all RfAs with non-trivial opposition will slowly descend in %age support. Voters are naturally attracted to borderline RfAs, and tend to give a lot more weight to the oppose section, with snowballing effect - as the oppose section grows longer, the more formidable it looks, the more the temptation to take the position of righteousness and simultaneously sink someone. Everyone knows this. So do the crats. If they don't they should resign.

RfAs have pre-announced time limits for a reason. An extension is called for when radically new evidence comes out in the last few hours of an RfA and an opportunity to change one's view needs to be afforded. In this case, the bureaucrats simply screwed up by not showing up for thirteen hours. When Redux finally logged in, he found a "situation" - me asking why the RfA wasn't being closed promptly. Instead of minimizing the damage by closing the RfA right then and there, he punished the candidate by giving fickle voters another 24 hours to consider the RfA. The level of support predictably deteriorated - as it always does - and the candidate lost out. No new evidence was presented, no new opinion was expressed.

Like I said: RfAs have pre-announced time limits for a reason. Time limits give everyone some certainty of expectation, and minimize opportunistic opposing. The bureaucrats blew it: not by closing the RfA the wrong way, but by unfairly dragging it along with predictable consequences. They owe Kafziel an apology. - crz crztalk 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I disagree that RfAs are always on a down spiral. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita are two such cases. Sam was 9-11 and then went 59-8 to end at 68-19 and scrape past. Generally they do, but in the case of non-famous users, people are likely to go around digging for some faults and find some non-standard pattern and use it to oppose. It's mostly only later when it is pointed out that they in fact are doind better than some landslide RfAs, that things turn around. As for the comments about "fickle", it appears that the electorate is currently in an optimistic mood and has been promoting rather liberally, whereas a few months before, when there were many candidates who usually would pass 98%+ only passed at maybe 85% because there were a few large-scale conflicts which made people's trust threshold go up. So I didn't think that this was a time when candidates got battered excessively. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They don't. They have the right to do that; we've trusted them with the right when we've voted for them in their RFBs. "Fickle voters"? Please don't make me lose respect for you. Take a break for a while... I think you're becoming too emotionally attached to the situation. – Ch acor 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The WP:B page says Wait at least seven days. It was stated no crats were available at the time, and the reasoning of the extention seems valid. Kafziel lost due to lack of consensus. Did the delay adversly affect him? Yes. Is the the crats fault? I don't think so. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with HighIn here. Delays do occur. While I think it is true that leaving contentious RfAs open longer will probably make them more likely to go to no consensus than anything else, it is hard to see how having what amounts to a larger sample size of users could be intrisically a bad thing. Furthermore, I don't think anyone owes Kafziel an apology. If Kafziel would have strongly benefitted the project having admin tools a few months earlier than Kaf will get, that hurts the project not Kaf. In any event, I am confident that if Kaf runs again in two months Kaf will become an admin and most likely get to be within the WP:100. JoshuaZ 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel quite certain that had this not come at the conclusion of a month where we had quite a few candidates with easy 90%+ finishes, this probably would not have ended this way. The close call I'm sure would not have been as close during a normal period. Regardless, the twenty-four hour extension, in my opinion, was unnecessary, and the absence of the bureaucrats during the thirteen-hour period only reinforces that (isn't that an extension already?). Redux's explanation – Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline). – appeared to be a series of reasons (close call, fairness, etc.) that did not fit the conclusion (the extension). Nevertheless, I do not think an apology is necessary here, not only because apologies made at request don't really mean much, but also because Kafziel stated in the RfA that he was okay with the 24/37-hour extension. Also, I must say Crzrussian's desire to get this RfA through is quite astounding; the repetitive notification of the bureaucrats (although not really wrong), this comment, and the rushed RfB are proof of that. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have some pride issues I need to work on. - crz crztalk 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe Redux was concerned that a few oppose votes had gone in since the deadline, and another user has said he did not vote support because he was not sure if it was kosher after the deadline. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian, once again, the "situation" was not that you were calling attention to a RfA that had expired over 12 hours earlier. The "situation" was that there was a close-call RfA that had expired half a day earlier. That you were calling attention to it is a service to the community, and to the Bureaucrats. Now, used to be that !votes, votes, participations, or anything that was cast past closing time was automatically discarded by the closing Bureaucrat — in fact, if you can find cases like this back in Cecropia's time, you will find that he used to seggregate those as cast after expiration —, but things have changed. Community feeling now is that the RfA runs normally, even if past the original deadline, until a Bureaucrat closes it, in the spirit of it being a consensus-building exercise, rather than a vote. That means that, by the time I came around yesterday, consensus was within discretion. You'll get no argument from me that it was less than ideal that no Bureaucrat managed to drop by for the better part of that day, but that happens, although thankfully, it's unusual. But that was the hand we were dealt in this RfA, and that is what I had to work with.
Now to clarify why I felt that the extension was necessary: As I said before, when a RfA expires but goes unclosed for a substantial amount of time, that affects, or can affect, people's disposition to participate, especially those who are not regulars on RfA. I decided on the extension, which is a well-known resource to be used in close calls, such as this one had become, as a means to compensate for the time during which uncertainty, caused by the fact that the RfA was overdue for a significant amount of time, but yet remained open without any official extension, could have affected definitively the outcome — as indicated by the shift in consensus that took place during that time, noticing that there is no way of measuring what would or could have happened if all users had been positive that it was still ok, and in fact constructive, for them to participate. A lot of people tend to think "ok, this one is already in the books" when they see an expired deadline at the top of a RfA. The goal was that, given the circumstances, the candidate would have a fair and honest chance of being reviewed by anyone and everyone who would be willing to weigh in. I undestand that it is very easy to read something into this; in fact, I've seen more than one case where, after an extension was granted, users interpreted the measure the exact opposite way you did, and decided to oppose, or even changed their !vote to "oppose", because they had felt that the extension was meant to, or would have the effect of, "ensure the candidate's promotion". Of course, that was not the case.
And in the end, the extension itself had barely any impact on the outcome when the final result is compared to the state of affairs in place when I came by 24 hours ago. There was more opposition, but there was also more support, and although the support consensus did drop further, it wasn't significant enough for it to have been the decisive element in the final outcome of this RfA. Redux 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your exhaustive post. I understand all of it, except for "the shift in consensus" which you observed. It was three percentage points, 81% to 78%, if I am not mistaken. That completely falls through the margin of error cracks here as to carry no meaning. - crz crztalk 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But notice that: 1) The RfA was always closer to the minimal support necessary when it was approaching its original deadline; 2) It went from just above the minimal support necessary to the margin of discretion exactly during the (many) hours when the RfA had already expired in terms of the deadline set, but remained active nonetheless. This situation introduced an element of uncertainty and unfairness (to both the candidate and the community) that I hoped to correct by "giving back" (figuratively) the time during which no one really knew when exactly the RfA would be closed, and thus anyone could, and many would, hesitate to participate. I couldn't very well say "closed, too bad if you were still thinking about whether or not you should weigh in". In this context, whether I promoted the candidate or failed the RfA, it wouldn't have been completely fair. I'm sure it's very easy to see how anyone could say: "what do you mean failed? If I knew that I could support 11 hours past the deadline, I would have, and the candidate might have succeeded", and a similar argument could be used by those who would have meant to oppose had the candidate been promoted then. It's the fire and the frying pan, if you think about it. It was a very long delay, during which much was uncertain and consensus shifted visibly. I concluded then that an extension would compensate for this, at least to a certain extent, and help lessen the problem.
Noticing, of course, that the RfA was, in the end, a tough call, and it was failed at 77%, meaning: any Bureaucrat could have (although not necessarily would have) failed the RfA at 78%, which was where it was 24 hours ago. Redux 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. - crz crztalk 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-Crats Closing Requests?

Given the above, wouldn't it be sensible to allow non-'Crats (maybe limit it to just admins but I can't see a reason why) to 'close' (i.e. add the relevant templates) an RfA? We could create some new templates and backgrounds to indicate a 'closed and pending decision' RfA. It would thus still need a Bureaucrat to decide whether it suceeds or fails, but this would avoid situations such as the above occuring? If the Bureaucrat wanted to re-open the nomination to allow for a greater consensus to develop, he/she could do that, announcing an extended discussion period of x hours/days.

I don't see any obvious problem with such a proposal - anyone trying to abuse it would be spotted pretty quickly, its pretty obvious when a week is up (and I guess we could exclude nominator(s)/nominee from closing their own debate). --Robdurbar 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't like it. As mentioned above, nowadays crats no longer discount votes in after the deadline. I suppose for obvious ones (unanimous or near-unanimous support), but definitely not for those hovering near 73 or 78%. – Ch acor 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be easier and lead to less policy-creep if we simply changed the closing time wording on the RfA header to something like "Ending after 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)". This wording would inform participants that it will run at least until a certain date and time. If it takes a few hours for a bureaucrat to show up, no big deal. SuperMachine 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Kafziel ^Talk 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, there's really no good reason for non-crats (or especially non-admins) to close requests—at least, none that would outweigh the potential problems. If an RfA's tally stands at a point where the outcome (success or failure) is clear enough for a non-crat to make the call, then if it gets left open for an extra few hours – or even an extra day – it shouldn't materially affect the outcome. If the RfA is close, then we don't want a non-crat going near the decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Closing at a specified time encourages vote counting and percentages over consensus. What if the templates are placed on an RfA by an admin before consensus can be adequately determined by the bureaucrat? A decision that seems clear to one person might not seem so simple to another. It's better to have an RfA run long than to resort to counting votes. Kafziel ^Talk 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, here! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a solution looking for a problem. This whole thing is blown out of proportion. We limit this action to crats for a reason, and a little but of impatience is no reason to change that. Lets not forget that a crat may want it to be left open in a close call, wheras someone else might want it closed at the moment of expiring if it is just above 80% and looks like it may fall(not refering to anyone speficic). This is the crats discretion, and they have not violated that discretion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no problem here. It doesn't matter if discussions carry on for more than a week. If the %ages are likely to significantly change after the week is up, then obviously consensus hasn't been determined yet and the RfA should stay open. If the %ages aren't likely to change, then it makes no difference. Either way, the RfA shouldn't be closed as soon as the week is up. I like the suggestion of changing the header to "Ending after", in fact, we could take it even further and leave the timing entirely up the the crats - once they think consensus has been determined, they close the RfA, regardless of how long it's been open. This would require us to trust the crats, which seems to be unpopular with some people, of course. The only significant issue is making sure the RfA has been open long enough for people to see it, but I don't think we need to determine a set length of time for that, that crats can decide. --Tango 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a wording change might be beneficial, though I'm not sure "Ending after" is the clearest option, and I certainly think an open-ended RFA could be fraught with peril. But the only situation non-crats should be closing RFAs is when the candidate has withdrawn/botched it so bad it's unreadable, in my opinion. -- nae'blis 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey lookit that! Back in October a few people discussed changing "Ending" to "Due to end" on the template talk page, then forgot to implement it. :P -- nae'blis 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold - crz crztalk 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was changed in October, but it was changed back because it apparently messes up the bot. I've changed it back to "ending" because of this. --Majorly 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentioned open-ended RfAs up above. This reminded me of an idea I had about how to modify the RfA process to deal with issues of desysopping, if that was ever needed, and enabling the community to indicate whether consensus on a particular admin has changed. The basic idea involves leaving the RfA page open indefinitely, so people can change their votes if a particular admin starts to cause problems. Those who hadn't participated in the original RfA would be able to register their oppose or support in a different section. This would give an idea as to whether a particular admin retains the community's consensus over time, or has lost the trust of the community. One problem though is that anyone who gets upset by an admin would be able to 'retaliate', so I'm not actually sure how this would work in practice. If bad-faith oppose votes were dealt with, it might work. Carcharoth 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A good idea, but I can think of two problems straight off. First, it would lead to a host of admins too timid to do anything that might upset anyone, even if it were the correct course of action. Admins need a level of protection, as they do have to make unpopular decisions on occasion. Also, the good faith has already been put in the user by granting them sysop status, and keeping the RFA open is like saying 'We don't trust you' - if they show themselves to be truly undeserving of that faith, then it will show soon enough, and the status gets removed. Keeping the RFA open is asking for trouble, and would show a lack of trust and good faith. Proto::type 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think one way to deal with that is to have a minimum level required to reopen the RfA. But that makes it similar to other proposals. Carcharoth 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my idea as far as I remember. The proposed solution to the problem Proto brought up was to have a lower support (i.e. higher oppose) percentage required to desysop an admin than to sysop them in the first place, and to insist that the consensus stayed there continuously for a certain length of time (a week in the original proposal), so that people had time to change their minds again; perhaps it should be longer. However, there was a lot of disagreement with it when originally proposed (because of the WP:RFDA element and because it was based on vote-count). --ais523 16:32, 29 November 2006 (U T C)

Just as a matter of nomenclature (hey, this is an encyclopedia), note that you can't have a 78% consensus. You can have a 78% vote-count.

What the consensus is (and if there is one) is something I'll leave to others to determine. The consensus could be to promote to admin, not to promote to admin, or do something else entirely even.

Perhaps the parties should get together and discuss the options and maybe come to a consensus-through-compromise, in this case? Possibly the candidate may need to promise to work on particular issues that the people who have opposed have brought up.

Kim Bruning 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)