This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 150

←

Archive 152

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

→

Archive 160

This is a notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. APologies for the delay getting this notice out, but I've been busy over the holidays etc. Best wishes, Fritzpoll ( talk) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Should RfA's be made into a proper vote? As in, if it gets more supporters than opposers, it passes. If it gets more opposers than supporters, it fails. A couple of reasons why I think it could/should work:

• It would result in far more promotions.
• It could temp more people to run for adminship.
• Everyone seems to treat it as a vote anyway.
• WP:NBD

I know the chances of this happening are very slim, but I thought i'd throw this idea open to opinion. Please don't spare my feelings, i'm interested in what people here think about this idea! Cheers :-) John Sloan ( view / chat) 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of making 50% an absolute "auto-pass". As a side note, I'd also be opposed to an "auto-pass" of 75%. It is true, though, that it is often looked at as a straight-up vote, but when there are RFAs that "come down to the wire", I like it much better having the bureaucrats weighing the situation. If there was some arbritary "auto-pass" percentage, we could practically have a "bureaucrat-bot". Useight ( talk) 00:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. Even ignoring the "Voting is evil" there needs to be some "discretionary range" in which the closing 'crat is expected to use good judgment. Right now there is a "zone of crat discretion." I forget whether that's 70-75% or 75-80%, but for the sake of example let's say it's 70-75%. Even that zone isn't firm. A 69.9% pass with all the supports strong and all the opposes weak might pass, but a 75.1% pass with only weak supports and strong opposes might fail, particularly if something unusual happened very late in the RFA and, had it been put on hold, most of the supports would have shifted. Even if we do go to a formal straight-up vote, it shouldn't happen until in practice RFA has been a straight-up vote with a single pass/fail cutoff with no 'crat discretion for some time. If that happens, changing the process to match practice would be okay. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The traditional discretionary zone is 70-75%, just for your personal enlightenment. But, yeah, a few RFAs above 75% have ended in no consensus while some sub-70% have been successful. Useight ( talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither "far more promotions" nor tempting more people to run at RfA are prima facie positive features.

The situation with RfA is that it fails to live up to the community norm of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. You hope to rectify this failure by abandoning the norm in favour of the current practice. Doing so will, in my opinion, lead to less willingness on the part of editors to discuss the rationale for their feelings toward the candidacy and greater sensitivity to "badgering" ("I have a right to vote, and don't have to explain myself to you"), and so less in-depth discussions of the merits of the candidate. Not needing to defend one's position will reduce the thought one puts into it and the depth of scrutiny the candidate receives.

There is the reverse problem with WP:NBD; RfA ought not to be, but is effectively treated as a Big Deal. That is because it has most certainly become one. Only the most egregiously abusive administrators and those who fall foul of a shift in the political winds can be recalled; as such, adminship is for life. Neither is adminship simply the minor maintenance position the sepia-toned mop/janitor rhetoric of its holders and the "aw shucks, just want to help out with the backlogs" posture of RfA candidates try to paint it. Collectively, the few hundred active administrators wield a great deal of power over the encyclopaedia, effectively controlling who may edit and exerting a heavy de facto influence on content disputes. Adminship is, in other words, a Big Deal, and ought to be treated as such. If it were easy and non-acrimonious to de-admin, RfA might become less strenuous on candidates and more assumptive of good faith, but under the current circumstances we would be fools to give out tools wantonly. Skomorokh 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I like the discussion system. While most promotions appear to be a straight vote, there are some which fall into the discretionary range. I generally trust that the B'crats read the rationales/discussion and make an informed closure based upon this. I think this is preferable to a straight vote with a cut-off; it allows proper discussion and consensus to be formed. Lazulilasher ( talk) 00:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• "It would result in far more promotions." - Why is this a good thing? Giggy ( talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say that more promotions of high-caliber, qualified editors would be a good thing, as there is plenty of work to do, but lowering the bar to 50% is not the way to do this. Useight ( talk) 04:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And I would fully agree with you. Far more promotions does not equal more promotions of high-caliber, qualified editors, however. Giggy ( talk) 04:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • • Well yeah, it's pretty obvious that this system would not result in more high-caliber, qualified editors being promoted. Useight ( talk) 07:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. A straight vote would not work; it would remove any inclination to discuss the candidate and also allow the most ridiculous support/opposes (example: Kurt's prima facie ones would be taken as equal to comments by say, Balloonman, who always thoroughly vets people before voting). Ironholds ( talk) 05:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Not to mention the fact that it would prove that RfA is nothing but a popularity contest. Ye with the most myspace friends wins!--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed with Useight and Skomorokh here. RfA needs to be less of a big deal, but making an auto-pass at 50% is not the way to do it. Let's be honest here: the RfA system itself is not broken. It's the participants and their attitudes. Glass Cobra 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Looking at this from a different angle, I would say that for a lowering of the adminship bar to be instituted in any form (straight-voting, discussion, or otherwise), it would first be necessary to institute some straight-forward, highly-simplified method to desysop, such as majority rules at any given time to desysop an admin. Such a lowering of the bar would pretty much dictate that adminship would need to go from practically a "lifetime position" to something that changes like a pair of socks. And I don't see that working nor do I see that as a good method even if it did work; the confusion alone as to who is an admin when would be a nightmare. Useight ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, as someone who may or may not be nominated for admin someday, I would not want to become admin because 50%+1 of the !voters thought I would do ok. Now, if 50%+1 plus the firm belief of the Bureaucrats thought so, then maybe. I generally like the 2/3 majority plus concept overall. (Of course, I say that, and if/when I do go through RfA, I will get exactly 65% ;-) ) ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Having a pass/fail system means someone can say with a straight face 'almost half of the RfA community think I'm shit! Woo, I got the tools!'. Agree with Useight as well; simplified sysopping needs simplified desysopping. Adminship will continue to be 'a big deal' until we erase some of the aura of invulnerability the position is surrounded with. Ironholds ( talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to be ashamed of if "almost half of the RfA community think I'm shit"; many of them are shits themselves. :lol: More seriously though, the point about easier desysopping is well made. Adminship ought not to be a job for life. -- Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

*goes all political* I couldn't possibly comment on that without crippling my RfA chances :P. The issue is how this desysopping process would work; like reform of the RfA process, it never seems to come together. Ironholds ( talk) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I quite understand. Some things are best left unsaid in the shadow of an impending RfA. Never mind though, you'll be able to say whatever you like once you get your janitor's cloak of invulnerability. -- Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with you, boy is that shit getting old. Your valid argument is becoming whiny. Tan | 39 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this face look bovvered? Talk to the hand. ;-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: There is no impending RfA for me as far as I know, heh. I like the name, though, although it does suggest that WP is a MMORPG; 'the Janitors Cloak of Invulnerability! It gives you +2 influence, +3 constitution and +7 fillibustering!'. Ironholds ( talk) 17:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the +500 e-mail, and -2500000 personality-among-editors ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is that. It also comes with a +2 accusations-of-bias, which is a bit of a drag. Ironholds ( talk) 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to say the same thing myself. :lol: -- Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments people! Reading through them, I can see why it would be a bad idea. In fact, after whats been noted here, i'd probably oppose this suggestion if it was put forward as a possibility! I do still like the idea of treating sysop tools like rollback though, as suggested at the RfA review (which I only read last night). Cheers! John Sloan ( view / chat) 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazing that this talk page gets so much traffic while there are absolutely no candidacies to discuss. Wouldn't it (ahem) be a better use of everyone's time to:

1. Go find a promising editor who has the right disposition for adminship and coach that person?
2. Do something about the massive backlogs with image copyright issues?

The latter is only (ahem) a massive set of lawsuits waiting to happen that could literally force WMF to close its doors. Not like that kind of issue ought to be a priority, of course. Durova ^Charge! 18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I nominated User:Undead warrior for adminship. He does a fair amount of work with image copyright tagging, but he was rejected because a few editors were nursing grievances over past deletion discussions, and several others though he was too brusque. It would be good for Wikipedia if we did not expect our administrators to behave as kindergarten teachers. Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'd have lot more admins if the process wasn't so brutal and unforgiving. C'est la vie. Majorly talk 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright claims only succeed to the extent that the copyright violator gains some financial reward from the violation. What financial gain does wikipedia make that would encourage such a lawsuit, or be likely to make one successful? -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. In the United States, (where the WMF exists legally), copyright infringement opens the door to statutory damages, without having to show any actual loss. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This talkpage is rarely used to discuss actual candidacies, and the process of RfA (which is the subject of the talkpage, after all) exists whether its being used or not. Avruch ^T 18:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A problem is that the "coaching period" would take time, at which point the "aggh no candidates" situation would've been resolved. Ironholds ( talk) 18:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This may sound ridiculous but one of the problems is that candidates are being "coached" rather than being inherently able. The project isn't going to die overnight if there aren't any requests for a while GTD 18:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we have 1600-odd already. I assume you lot already do something and I'm not going to open the "banmonkeys" door and find an empty room :P. Ironholds ( talk) 19:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah! We do something, very important, yes very important. It would be complicated to explain though.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are something like 950 active administrators, about one for every 300 or so active editors IIRC. Perhaps arguably too many administrators? -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

GTD, in my coaching experience, there are two types of coachees: One who does need some coaching to learn more, and one who knows everything already and is inherently able but needs an extra boost of confidence to get through it. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to my point, if I may, the coaching system seems to churn out little more than "adminship by numbers" candidates. Basically: Do x DYK hooks, get a GA, keep mainspace edits above x per cent, etc, etc. If someone came along and, after a month or so, would clearly make a decent admin they should. But they never would under the system. Would be easier just to start dishing the mop out without RFA GTD 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

GTD, that comment barely passes the G1 threshold... the problem with coaching is that most coaches do a piss poor job at it and do coach for "adminship by the numbers." There are a handful of coaches who work for more, but there aren't enough Ivy League coaches...--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon Take the CSD Survey 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"a massive set of lawsuits waiting to happen that could literally force WMF to close its doors"... oh stop with the hyperbole. You're not scaring anyone -- Gurch ( talk) 19:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Nonsensical, as I said above. -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been through RFA several times, and was even thinking about self nominating again this week as 12 admins resigned, but I have not come to a decision because of my experiences with the system. I do agree that the system should be at least somewhat modified, as Majory said above. R. T. 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

12 admins resigned? Who? Ironholds ( talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1. ElinorD ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
2. Thatcher ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
3. Ais523 ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
4. Matilda ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
5. RedirectCleanupBot ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
6. Gaillimh ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
7. WJBscribe ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
8. Jossi ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
9. MaxSem ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
10. Xavexgoem ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
11. AGK ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
12. Ameliorate! ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
13. Herbythyme ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
14. MPUploadBot ( talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)

I think all of us who have failed at the RfA process might welcome some changes, but it's not going to happen. I admire your resilience in considering putting yourself forwards for the trial by fire again though. So if you ever do, be sure to let me know. For myself, I'd rather eat broken glass. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken glass sounds great compared to another RfA! aye matthew @ 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are 26 current requests over at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching, including my self :), if a current admin was just willing to take these wannabe admins under their wing then, we wouldn't be having this discussion.-- Iamawesome 800 23:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, "wannabe admins" are exactly what we don't want. Adminship shouldn't be an award to work towards. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah! I'm especially surprised to see WJBscribe and AGK on that list. If I've missed that while on vacation, then there's no telling what else I have missed since December 13. I need a Wikipedia Secretary. Useight ( talk) 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Juliancolton, that page should be renamed Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Lists of people who are willing to sacrifice their personal lives and their stress levels for the betterment of Wikipedia. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all on the list are "admin wannabes". Some might have potential or/and qualified for the job, just not feel confident enough to run under this process that all of us know is notoriously brutal. (For one, I would be too). - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I swear that long link was red when I posted it!!! I swear too that I didn't make it blue. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

EVula did it. -- Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to coaching and adminship-by-numbers: Yes, this is a concern. Part of a good coach's job is to evaluate the potential coachee and see if he's a "too new to evaluate/NOTNOW" "good base material but needs experience or training/GOODSTUDENT" or "um, you might want to just stick to editing/NOTNOWNOTEVERWELLMAYBEINACOUPLEYEARS" Admin coaching should be like going to college: The entrance exam is the coach evaluating you before coaching begins, to see if there's good raw material. The coaching process gives you the experience to show if you can handle the essential skills or conversely, show that you can't. RFA should be like the final exam: Not only show that you "know the right answers" but, because your pre-coaching edits will be looked at heavily on the assumption that your in-coaching edits were, shall we say, coached, that you do indeed have a baseline personality suited for the task. Disclaimer and blatant spamvertising: I'm near the end of a several-month "self-coaching" exercise. As my "pre-final" I've asked several editors to give me feedback to make sure I'm not in the "NOTNOWNOTEVERWELLMAYBEINACOUPLEYEARS" or "GOODSTUDENTBUTNOTREADYTOGRADUATE" category. If and when I do run for adminship, the "baseline personality" edits to look at will be those before about October of this year. Since then, I'm making a point of exploring additional areas of the project that administrators need to be familiar with, so I don't do something idiotic if granted access to the tools but also to get a better idea of what being a janitor is all about. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)The problem we face is not that we are losing more admins than we are gaining - over the course of 2008, we have gained 196 administrators through RfA, and around 30 or so admins have resigned; quite a bit, yes, but we have gained some as well. After March, however, RfA got quite a bit harder to pass, as RfA-gnomes would find an arbitrary requirement to oppose somebody over, and pile-on against a candidate who may otherwise be suitable. This does not mean we are not promoting good admins and refusing premature candidacies; several good editors received a mop over the year. I would say the biggest problem would be how the frequent opposition pile-on may possibly left a negative impression of RfA on various potential candidates who could use a mop but are shot down over a lack of a quantifiable standard.

At the moment, as Durova has said, a backlog facing some difficulties would be the image copyright log, which could bring potential legal issues for the Wiki. But it simply starts with this. At the moment, there's still a sizable amount of reliable admins on the site. But gradually, over the course of several months, if this continues (if not worsens), we will likely have less and less active admins on the project. This will inevitably lead to more backlogs and a harder time countering vandals in a timely manner. We will still have admins, just not as many as would be desirable.

The difficulty with fixing this system lies not in restructuring the system with the expectation that it will help an editor to pass. The RfA structure has absolutely nothing to do with the faults of RfA. The scrutiny of RfA stems entirely from the fact that each member of the community has their own view on what is desirable from a potential administrator, and as such the consensus of the community on desired adminship criteria is much more stringent. One editor could claim that a contributor going up to RfA must have some experience collaborating with other users on content, as exemplified by their number of FA's/GA's, or they will oppose. One would say that an editor should have a certain number of edits per month or they cannot be considered active enough for adminship. Some focus more on how many contributions an editor has to a certain noticeboard and rely on that as a gauge for how well they know the relevant policies. There is something to every one of these oppose arguments, and frequently they are good reasons, but sometimes opposers overlook the most important questions of RfA - can this editor be trusted with the tools, and will it benefit Wikipedia? This is not something that another system will fix - those standards will show up in any consensus-based system.

Admin-coaching has, of course, been successful in some instances, and in others it has failed miserably. Balloonman points out a problem, that many coaches focus only on getting an editor the quantity of contributions that would be required for RfA, instead of helping them get on the track for quality. In this regard, coaching had only been helpful to the extent where a few editors came to RfA and passed it when they were ready. This makes adminship look more like a trophy that can be attained by being a well-rounded and gifted contributor, instead of a technical access level that is given to trustworthy editors to do some maintenance work on the wiki, with the expectation that they will not abuse or misuse the tools. Adminship is not a higher race of highly intelligent and gifted Wikipedians who know exactly what to do in any circumstance; it's a priveledge for trusted editors who have a clue what they're doing.

The situation with RfA being "broken" is something that happened over time, when adminship became a bigger deal. If it continues (which it probably will), then it will only worsen. Imagine what this process looks like to newcomers who have seen RfA for the first time ever. What idea are they to get regarding what adminship is? Perhaps they will see it as a respected position on Wikipedia.

As much as we would like to fix RfA, a solution will not come overnight. This is a natural process that occured as the Wiki community started to take Wikipedia as a whole more seriously. When things are taken too seriously, common sense tends to take a back seat, only being applied where it appears obvious that is should be applied. There is no immediate idea that will make everything better, that's unfortunately just the way it is. The only thing we can do is make sure we are using our common sense when we look at an editor; remember that it isn't about how many special contributions they have, it's about how all of it demonstrates that they can be trusted to be responsible administrators. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally see no "reform" proposal which is likely to gain the consensus necessary. I would suspect that the most convenient solution is for more admins and responsible editors to monitor and vote on candidates, and give solid reasons for their positions. The more chances for voices of reason to be heard (assuming there are some), the better.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To add onto my comment earlier, someone should look through the requests for coaching and either agree to coach them or if ready for adminship, nominate them cause they clearly have interest in being one.-- Iamawesome 800 03:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Man of few words, huh Master & Expert ;) All the best for the New Year everyone. Lazulilasher ( talk) 03:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To sum up what Master & Expert said, stop nitpicking. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins, own up now...

How many of you think that you'll NOT be able to pass RfA if you were to self-nominate/be nominated today (under 'current standards'), assuming that you started editing from the number of months you took up to your actual successful RfA? - Mailer Diablo 04:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I passed in a way easier era. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
3. The question is unclear, but either way I would fail. If you're saying I had the edits I had when I ran for adminship... well, that was about 1500 edits. (Many of those edits required hours of research, by the way.) Those who prefer edit-counting to actually looking at contributions would snowball me right off the page. If I were to run now, I'd fail because I've pissed off too many people by siding with newbies at WP:UAA. rspεεr ( talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Yeppers Gazi moff 12:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Passed with flying colors with 3000 edits and 3 months in 2005. Today that is a hard sell, sadly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Well, as one of the former admins in your list of resignees earlier, I think I could still just ask for the bit back. Would I pass an RfA? No, due to inactivity, that's why I resigned in the first place. This probably doesn't count, though. -- ais523 14:32, 1 January 2009 ( U T C)
7. I actually think I'd do better than a lot. But I'd still fail miserably. Wizardman 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
8. I doubt most admins could pass because of the politics involved and the change in focus. People often become admins because their interest elsewhere start to wane.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon Take the CSD Survey 15:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
9. I'm abusive, deletionist, etc. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   You would-- Patton ^{t/ c} 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

10. Would anyone like coffee? Graham Colm ^Talk 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    You've only been an admin for a week and you've already abused your adminly powers so much that you couldn't pass today!--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon Take the CSD Survey 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    Graham is still the junior admin until they finish inscribing the custom mop for Cam, so he brings the coffee. Black, 22 Nutra Sweets.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Alright, who wants espresso? Cam ^{( Chat)} 01:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

11. I wouldn't pass if I was applying as I was when I passed and I would fail miserably if I reapplied now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure that I would fail RfA despite the fact that I nevertheless have just been elected to ArbCom. (The latter process has much wider participation). —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    That's scary. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

    I think it's more a reflection on the process than a reflection on my capacity, to be frank. —  Coren  ^(talk) 18:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

13. No question. –  iridescent 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    You would-- Patton ^{t/ c} 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

14. I've been an admin for less than six months, and I have no doubt that I would fail. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    You would-- Patton ^{t/ c} 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

15. Probably be much harder than last time through, but I'm unsure whether I'd fail outright. I'd get all the "OMG deletionist" opposition !votes, but ranking #2 on this list might help ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, and just to throw this out there, what do people think of the #1 person on that list? The collective force of a half-dozen people couldn't convince him to run, as well as countless other attempts from his admin coach (me), maybe a congenial response here might. — sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    Gary's not an admin... Ithought he was.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon Take the CSD Survey 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    He certainly has made tremendous progress as an editor, but still isn't convinced to run...I wonder why... - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

    This list right here is just another useful excuse that I can use :p Gary King ( talk) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

16. I'm of the mind that while it is possible that I would succeed, I would not accept the nom currently taking into account the current state of RfA instead of a year ago. - MBK ₀₀₄ 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Certainly, no chance I would pass today, heck even if I had never been an admin, had 50,000 edits like I do today, and had the dozen DYKs and GA I do today, I doubt I would pass. MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
18. It would be closed as WP:NOTNOW, probably fail in less than one hour. RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
19. I used to be one, but I would fail now, does that count? -- Gurch ( talk) 12:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
20. I don't think I'd pass. I've accumulated too many enemies - I mean people who don't like me. All you had to do in the old days was to know half a dozen people. And I find all the "rules" too confusing. They change all the time and it's a pain to keep revisiting. Deb ( talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
21. Late to the party responding, but no, there is no way I'd pass today. -- Kbdank71 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Really? Seriously? Most of you would still pass with your original noms and all of you (give or take maybe one or two cases) would pass today. Some of the assertions above are ridiculous. I passed just recently with relative ease and I am an idiot!
  Something bizarre has infected the WT:RFA regulars. Higher standards are a natural and not necessarily bad progression. The admin backlogs grow and shrink, grow and shrink, I see no evidence that the growth is exponential. It is the content (non-admin) backlogs that just keep growing.
  Just a few weeks ago the talk of the town was how bad our administrators are, many of the recent resignations were blamed in part on the failings of the admincore (, incivility of).
  If all the energy in this page was channeled to the backlogs, they'd be gone! It seems people like to complain more than they like to work however. Icewedge ( talk) 06:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if I were to apply as I was when I first became an admin that I would pass. BUT where I am now. I wouldn't have a chance. First, I've antagonized too many people via my opposes here---for every person who values the way I vet candidates, there aer people who despise it as well. Second, my faux pas with a certain RfA would doom any chance of passing.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, not to toot my own horn, but I failed my first RfA, and after some time passed, I had a successful RfA with unanimous support. Thus, one must conclude that with even more time having passed since then, were I to hold another RfA I would very likely pass with even more unanimous support than my previous attempt. Since I am exactly the same person as I was when I passed, one must conclude that the standards get easier as time goes on. Hiberniantears ( talk) 19:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, people, I don't know where you were when they were handing out self esteem but you missed out. Crikey.-- Koji † 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I often hear people talking about how "The admins are horrible because they always do X and they never do Y." So, looking at adminship while being an admin, the perception is that in general, everyone hates our guts and longs to see us run into the ground. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I think that sums it up nicely. :-) There's no doubt in my mind that a gap has opened up between admins and non-admins which does not bode well for the future of wikipedia. Compare the number of long-term, well established editors who are not administrators with the johnny-cum-latelys who make a successful but ephemeral appearance at RfA, only to disappear amongst the growing ranks of inactive administrators. -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is like politics..

..Whatever decision you make you're going to piss somebody off. This goes doubly for Arbcom, of course. I think quite a large chunk of the more "public" of our admins would fail a re-sysop for precisely this reason; if you get involved in controversial areas or settling disputes, one person is going to come off worse and will nurture a grudge. Ironholds ( talk) 11:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Where there is power, there will always be politics. The powers that is associated with adminship in recent times has become particularly "visible", usually the result of some unpleasant incident(s). Three years ago, the community wouldn't imagine every combination of possible beans out of a candidate. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And this would be part of the problem. Adminship is no big deal. It has nothing to do with power, but as it is perceived to be such, politics enter in. Adminship is a chance to help the project be self-sustaining and not have power over people/articles/other elements of en.Wikipedia. ( talk→  BMW   ←track) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't think Wikipedia had unpleasant incidents three years ago? You don't think some of the wrong people became admins? Wikipedia has this way of fixing itself. There's really no reason to be so much more selective now than then, especially when the usual criteria for selection (how many thousands of edits can you rack up?) are so unrelated to the way people will act as an admin. rspεεr ( talk) 12:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, nostalgia for the "good old days". Just can't beat it! Seriously, what you say is true, in that any admin who does their job properly is going to upset a few applecarts and make enemies. But that's always been the case, really. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

Never said any different, I'm not advocating a "ooh it was so much better in 2004, when admins were real admins, men were real men and vandals were dead vandals" mentality, I'm simply saying that any admi who works in almost any area to do with the tools is going to incur the wrath of users. I'm sure it was just the same in 04/5/6/7/8. Well, I know it was in 08. Ironholds ( talk) 12:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. //  roux    12:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Roux: Kudos on getting the HGTTG reference. Ironholds ( talk) 13:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there were none : There are more incidents than it used to be. And new possibilities of circumventing RfA and abusing the mop that results in stricter criteria. It's like how we now have to toss bottles of drink into the bin before boarding the plane now, whereas in the past nobody really cares about it. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice analogy. So while that was as a result of 'incidents' can we blame someone for the increased RfA strictness and have them sent to cuba in violation of due process? Ironholds ( talk) 13:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I made and reverted this change which shows the bot report. This will put it on the main RFA page instead of just the talk page. Any objections to doing this? The only downside is it might be deemed prejudicial, but I think that's more than made up for by the utility. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What utility is added? Seems cluttery, IMHO, and the report of currently running rfa's is already found in ample places. But WP:BRD and all, don't really care one way or the other. Keeper | 76 05:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Keeps here, it seems cluttered. It's not much effort for someone to go to the talk page to see the bot report. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, given the size of WP:RFA with its transclusions, I always start at WT:RFA anyway.  Frank  |   talk  11:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• This has been proposed lord knows how many times. Shot down every time. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• I open RFA on my Blackberry sometimes, it's already a huge page that takes a minute to open. I don't see a justification for the extra memory-weight on the main page. And, this would pretty much scream to the community "it's a numbers-based vote." Townlake ( talk) 20:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Just not that useful. Also, you should probably use a diff for this sort of demonstration. Avruch ^T 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Not in favor of this idea. RFA is cluttered as it is. But a good thought. MBisanz ^talk 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Throw me in the "not needed" pile. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • EVula, it's official. You're not needed. ;) Sorry, couldn't resist :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Several times in the past couple years, administrators have invoked their " right to vanish" only to come back under another name and be quietly granted +sysop under their new account after private discussion with a bureaucrat. I'm not sure this practice has been a good idea, despite the good intentions of the bureaucrats... it creates confusion and raises questions when a new administrator comes out of thin air, making it impossible to check their history, logs, RfA, etc., and has created controversy in a few instances.

I won't call attention to specific instances, to respect their privacy. But I'd like to propose that from this point forward, +sysop bits should only be transferred by bureaucrats if a clear, public link to the person's previous account is provided, for the sake of transparency. What does the community think? krimpet ✽ 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Without naming names, are you aware of situations where this has had negative repercussions? Have admins with controversial pasts, particularly those who might not have been resysopped if the request had been made at BN, been granted the bit on an account with no RfA? If thats the case, then it might make sense to ask that all requests to return the bit go through publically on WP:BN. Otherwise, I'm not sure what benefit we are getting in return for not allowing good administrators to escape potential harassment, by an effective name change, and remain administrators. Avruch ^T 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Krimpet's suggestion does seem reasonable. Admin rights are given by the community as a matter of trust; while I'm sure the bureaucrats are being careful to verify the identity of whoever before they grant the flag, it's difficult for the community to trust an administrator when they don't know who the administrator is, regardless of who is vouching for them. Depending on the reasons for which the admin chose to use their RTV, the community may have even lost their trust in the administrator, in which case the community may not wish for them to retain their admin tools. Transparency on-wiki is an important part of our operations here; when that begins to disappear, we give greater credence to the claims that administrators are a "class above" other editors, which is not what we want to do. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a variety of rare situations in which covert re-sysopping might take place. It is probably the action of a bureaucrat that takes the most deliberation because it is not transparent. These covert actions provide a service to editors during a time of great stress - but if any of these re-sysoppings have had adverse effects, please let us know (via email if necessary).

Admins vanishing because they have lost the trust of the community - that wouldn't fly. But, for example, if an administrator is harassed to the point of having to vanish, that editor shouldn't be forced to give up her/his admin tools. To transfer the tools to the new account a bureaucrat can quietly grant the tools to the new account, the transfer of tools to the new account can be announced to the community (compromising the RTV), or the editor can start from scratch and build a new persona and apply for an RfA six to ten months later. The quiet granting of tools seems to be the best. RTV because of harassment is painful enough; having to give up tools because of it just rubs salt in the wound. Kingturtle ( talk) 04:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I give a hypothetical here? Let's say Admin X is known to edit in Area Y. Admin X vanishes under acceptable circumstances, but comes back later and is re-granted the tools by a crat privately. Now Admin X-new starts doing adminy-stuff (blocking, protecting, warning) in the area he was editing in before. People quickly realize this is Admin X, but they can't call him out on it, since that would be outing his old account. Now the crat who was just following practice and re-sysopping has placed the community in the position of either condoning admin abuse or outing someone. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why it is recommend that an individual edit different areas of the encyclopedia in order to decrease the chances of detection. I would also recommend waiting a period of time after "RTV-ing" before resurfacing. Useight ( talk) 05:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Krimpet, how many such cases do you know of? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of at least six such cases in the past eighteen months. At least two stirred up some controversy at the time. Two of these incidents involved the same person being re-sysopped; another involved a sysop who had repeatedly "RTV'd" and came back. krimpet ✽ 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The one I can recall, the admin went through with a covert re-sysopping after invoking RTV, but felt guilty about it and went through a reconfirmation RFA. The result was drama-tastic, to put it in a way. Since to vanish you must be in good standing, I have no problem with covert resysopping. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally know of two such cases, and think there would be a maximum of three such cases in three years if my memory serves me correct. These cases have had compelling reasons for a total rename due to offwiki harassment and stalking. But these cases are an exception rather than norm. If Krimpet has additional numbers & names, he is free to email us. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If somebody is being harassed, I understand the desire to help them, but I would think giving them a new account with +sysop outside of ordinary channels is only going to draw more attention to them and potentially make the matters worse as they're cast into the spotlight. Ultimately, it probably only does more harm than good. krimpet ✽ 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nichalp, I know of 3 or 4 cases myself, and I suspect the fact that you have been a crat for many years and do not know all the instances of this, means that this practice is poorly documented enough that it is somewhat of a problem. MBisanz ^talk 05:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. RTV should mean that the vanished account is "lost" unless the returned user self-discloses their old identity. The community is entitled to be able to view the RFA of any admin, and also view the contribs that support that RFA. Otherwise we have too many secrets, and/or the appearance of being secretive. Having secrets promotes the conspiracy theorists, which encourages people to actively look for reappearing users, which results in more harassment, and biting likely suspects. Also reclaiming a sysop bit lost in the vanishing weakens the concept of RTV. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support krimpet's proposal. According to WP:RTV:

The right to vanish is only available to users who are also exercising their right to leave. The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual is vanishing, not just theaccount. Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity.

That's very clear. If someone chooses to "vanish", that means they have burned the bridge and do not plan to return. Of course, many users have claimed RTV and then returned, and in many of those situations, they are quickly recognized but no-one mentions it. But that's different - if it's not spoken-out, then for those who do not recognize the user, there is no issue. But sysopping is done according to a formal community-based procedure. If re-sysoping occurs behind the scenes following a "vanishing", then the RTV behavioral guideline has been circumvented because they have continued their prior account identity in part. If that behavior is accepted by the community, then the RTV guideline needs to be changed to conform with actual practice. As the guideline is currently written, there can be no connection between the user's actions after vanishing and the persona or identity of the prior "vanished" account. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 06:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, sysop vanishing and then asking for the bit back has never made much sense; it just screams "dig up my crap" to me. If you're going to vanish, do so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Kingturtle on this. Admins don't have the right to do this, and I wouldn't suggest giving them the right to do this - however crat discretion is something different. Current practice strikes me as a practical solution where we would otherwise lose a good admin for off wiki issues, as long as crats only do this to admins in good standing what is the problem? As for judging admins and desysopping, I would hope that its an admins actions that matter, not their RFA. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 07:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A problem I can see is that should said admin later get into difficulties (RfC/ArbCom) then the people judging his behavior only have half the pages of the book. 'Good standing' doesn't mean 'squeaky clean'; no admin can be described as that. Ironholds ( talk) 09:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise? Having a single 'crat resysop in a case like this is problematic, but making the person wait 6-12 months and start over is a waste of talent. I trust the 'crats as a group to decide this for us. How about allowing such a person to come back if he either links the accounts and a single 'crat resysops him, as proposed above, or gets the support of 50% of active crats with at least a 4-1 support/oppose ratio. In either case, a statement to the effect of "Joe is a returning admin who left under non-controversial circumstances" should be logged somewhere. Failing that, go through RFA. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The first option completely obliterates the purpose for vanishing in the first place, while the second option (50% of active 'crats) turns us into a sysop-approving cabal (which some people may already feel like we are anyway, but that would just make it all the worse). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems fine to me; we do have the right to know how someone got the tools and to an audit trail. Stifle ( talk) 16:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure we do. It's written into the Wikipedia Bill of Rights. The "audit trail" is a convention, nothing more.-- chaser (away) - talk 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Davidwr, I completely agree with EVula - the first, yes, would make it suddenly transparent, but then the user might as well just log into their old account; the second is no more transparent than "current practice" and has "OMG Sooper Sekrit Cabalz" written all over it in bright neon lettering.

In general, though, if a returning RTV'er were to want their tools back, how should we require they request them? As Jack-A-Roe pointed out above, the RTV guideline page does specifically prohibit users from coming back under a new name. Should we make a partial exception in these cases, or require that they log back into their old account and take up the tools there again? If they are worried about the possibility of harassment, they could have their old account renamed; this will make it more difficult for harassers to track down who they are, but leaves our "paper trail" intact and does not go against the spirit of RTV. It's not bullet proof, no, and I'm sad to say that many of the harassers will be the type determined enough to put two and two together, but it would at least help. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 08:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Crats should be empowered to exercise judgement over whether someone has vanished purely because of good faith issues. Such people should be resysopped. Others will have to run the gauntlet of a few months of decent edits (which shouldn't be too hard) followed by an RfA. Editors with concerns about resysopped accounts abusing their tools can and should raise the issue in a number of sensitive manners, eg by email with the admin themselves, or the resysopping Crat, or any other Crat. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with GlassCobra above: RfA is not broken; it's the folks participating. A step in the right direction:

• I suggest 'crats rmv without discussion all comments w/in RfA that are about !voters. I mean all of them. Well, OK, maybe a tiny amt. of lighthearted joking is tolerable. But without intending to focus on this person in particular (very sorry!) I refer to comments like David Shankbone's here. David may heartily believe what he says, but it adds zero-point-zero light and a nonzero potential for heat to the discussion. The fairest thing to do is delete on sight. Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 08:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  Oh dear. We'd need to have a 'crat constantly clerking the discussion page; I don't think there are enough of them for that to work. With how fast these threads develop in RfAs they would already be established and run through by the time a 'crat got to it. Rather I'd suggest doing what I did at SoWhy's last RfA; anything that isn't contributing to the discussion that people still want to discuss can be moved to the talkpage/the participants talk page so it no longer distracts from the main point of the RfA. Ironholds ( talk) 09:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC) I only did it with a single thread just to clarify

  "Last RfA"? Did I have more than one and haven't noticed it? ;-)

  While your idea is a great one, it's hardly practical as Ironholds correctly points out. Rather than removing comments (which probably only crats could do without invoking drama) any editor that is sufficiently un-involved should just move them to the talk page(s) and crats can later judge if they should be removed completely. As we were already talking about my (a bit drama-ridden) RfA, let me elaborate with it as an example: I asked fish and karate ( talk · contribs), an uninvolved admin, to move most of the stuff on the talk page and I think we can apply this to any RfA that is in danger on becoming too cluttered by unnecessary side-discussions. Regards So Why 10:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry; I was aware it was at an RfA for you, just not what number it was :P. I got a pretty barnstar out of it, so that's alright. Ironholds ( talk) 10:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  I think what GlassCobra meant was that it is the way people vote that make RFA broken. The system is fine, it's just the people who believe in the myth that six months isn't enough. And of course, all the bad-faith accusations in the oppose side makes it doubly unpleasant. It was at one time, possible to pass after three months of vandal fighting. Such a person today would be labelled as "inexperienced", and would get shot down (and possibly compared to Archtransit). That is the kind of thing that makes RFA broken. David is completely and utterly correct in that comment. The stupid opposes are what causes RFA to fail to much. Majorly talk 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let me say this is as strongly as possible: The RfA's are getting fucking ridiculous. They are turning into judgmental streams where people relish pointing at one momentarily lapse in judgment or behavior of a person, and suddenly everyone piles on pointing fingers and telling people who have given a lot to this site that they do not have the ethical, moral or behavioral ability to have a few admin tools. I am against censoring the discussions in favor of letting the judgmental folks on this site to not have their poor reasoning for opposing people--as our admin numbers dwindle--that they are being unfair. I see it time and again. Grow up guys - nobody is perfect, and people can always be de-sysopped. This isn't the freaking Supreme Court, President or even voting for a local dog catcher. It's Wikipedia. It's adminship. It's public and watched. Judging the totality of a person's edits based on one incident, in my opinion, gives the appearance of "assholism". That's a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular. People could care less about WP:NOBIGDEAL. And the fact that users like User:Cool Hand Luke discuss on their User page ( go look) that they even did an attack on their admin nomination (and that user is now one of the most valued and trust in this community) shows that the way people judge admin nominations is thoroughly broken. You end up hurting good editors, disenfranchising them and hurting the site. All around, the RfA voting process and this arrogant and judgmental community are slowly going to choke the site since we won't have enough people to take care of all the admin-oriented issues. David Shankbone 14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Arrogant" and "judgmental"? It's extremely difficult to respond to such ad hominem. I could say something like "Apparently anyone who disagrees with you is arrogant and judgmental". But you'd get pissed off, others would chime in, blah blah blah as per the usual Wikipedia bullcrap way of venting without adding info. So. I'll just say, I disagree with your comments. :-) Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Agree with Ling Nut... but have to add I think a lot of people would differ with you when you said that people could be desysopped. While in theory this is true, in practice it is almost impossible. WP:ANI is becoming more and more of a joke when it comes to regulating admin behavior---too much of the herd mentaility. Everytime an admin is taken to task, everybody rallies around them. Similarly, if you are dealing with somebody who is over eager at CSD, there is almost nothing that can be done about it. IF there were a better process in place to get rid of bad admins, then the RfA process would once again become more user friendly. The RfA has become the last chance, barring major infractions, to effectively monitor admins. That being said, I do agree that people are too intent on single issues. Unless a pattern can be seen (or a recent egregious mistake) then the oppose shouldn't occur.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! If desysop were an easy process, RfA would be Mr. Roger's neighborhood. I am not kidding. Also.. trends.... it doesn't always have to be a trend. Recent examples of behavior that show deliberate circumvention of rules/policies/guidelines/good faith editing is enough. So what if the editor fails the RfA? The mop is not an entitlement. Come back in 3 months; MOST folks pass the second or perhaps third time around. Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I can easily imagine someone opposing a second RfA 3 months later on the automatic basis of "too soon." I do agree with you, however, that an easy desysopping system would be beneficial to the creeping standards on RfA. Though most proposed systems involve a significant change in responsibilities for the bureaucrats (which I'm a little hesitant about, but ultimately willing to accept), I still think it'd be for the best in the long run.
Also, speaking as a bureaucrat, I'd like to point out that if a big enough stink is made by the community about a particular rationale, we (the 'crats) do see that as a valid reason to discredit (or at least weigh it less) when it comes to RfAs. RfA is the community's process, and while the community may want the bureaucrats to be more active, the bureaucrats want the community to be more active. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

At least CSD errors can be fixed by deletion review. If a particular admin gets too many of his CSDs sent to review or overturned on review, it should give him a clue he's being too aggressive. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A sysop can be abusive without touching CSD, however, and in ways that aren't easily logged. There are also ways to technically be "right" with the CSD and still be a dick. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, DVR won't fix the problem. First, just because an article was clearly incorrectly deleted via CSD does not mean that it is appropriate to recreate via DVR. Also, DVR doesn't work at identifying problematic admins for a myriad of reasons. One of which is the bitten newbie doesn't know about DVR and will often leave the project instead.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the best solution to the problem. Unfortunately, term limits on admins seems to be a political dead end at the moment. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Term limits are a political dead end because (a) the number of sysops makes it unpractical (if they'd been there from the get-go, perhaps it would have been good) and (b) it would mean that we would desysop perfectly good candidates just because they've been a sysop too long (unless you're talking about reconfirmations, which are fraught with their own issues; there's an issue on Meta about reconfirmations at this very moment, with myself being slightly outside the center of the issue). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for term limits. What we need to do is make a system, similar to de-adminship on Commons. I'm not entirely happy with the process on Commons, and it's only ever been used twice afaik. Anyway, it's just like an adminship request, except the other way round. What I would change is that there should be requirement of reasonably trying to solve the issue first, before bringing it to RFDA. Otherwise, I don't see how it couldn't work here. Sure, you'll get someone coming up with the tired and lame old "voting is evil", but then again, so are bad admins. You'll also get the person saying "I'll have loads of people after me because I deleted the article on their band". Not so. We aren't stupid enough to see that unreasonable requests would get closed early. However, votes of no confidence on admins would be a really good thing. Not all of them, as most admins are fantastic. But when an admin's confidence has been lost, it should not take months to deal with. Majorly talk 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut et al. are right above. The big problem is that admins should be easily sysopped, and easily de-sysopped if the community decides either way. It makes no sense that the foremost Wiki community on the web, which holds dear the principle that anything that is done can be undone, doesn't do the same for adminship, and it is retarding the system of approval that people think no mistake can be made in the sysop process. First, it makes no sense; second, it goes against our values; third, a lot of problems are created with the "admin for life" system. But term limits are not the way to go. If anyone wants to help me write a proposal to change the desysop process, drop me a note; otherwise, I will try to draft a proposal. I am seeing too many good editors disenfranchised and shot down based upon unfairly harsh judgment over mistakes--mistakes most of us make. It's hurting the site --David Shankbone 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is the mistakes (or otherwise) of other people that are costing others adminship. People are more cautious today and demand unreasonably high standards. As I mentioned above, editors with 3000 edits and 3 months experience of vandal fighting would have been welcomed in open arms in 2005/6. Today, they'd be shot down, hung, drawn and quartered. Just because we have a few bad eggs does not mean everyone will be one who doesn't have two years, 4 FAs and a perfect record to show. I can understand why some people are cautious, but I don't believe there is a need to be. A deadminship proposal is a lovely thought, but it's a perennial suggestion. It'll never happen. I'd almost bet my house on it not happening. Too many people are stuck to the idea that adminship should be forever, unless removed by Arbcom. It's damaging, but trying to reason with such people and my frustration with them has contributed to me losing my own adminship. I'd happily be an admin again, for which I was most of the time uncontroversial, but I daren't go through RFA for fear of my past being brought back and twisted to make me look worse than I really am. We lost 12 admins last month for various reasons; we've already lost a few this month. I am happy to take up the job again - but I can't. Majorly talk 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with what you are saying. I personally have never wanted to be an admin because it would take too much focus off my content contributions, which have been paramount, but I see people shot down all the time. The worst RfA I ever saw was User:IvoShandor, who had contributed *so* much good content, he should have been a shoo-in. But he had made one mistake: he came home one night late after drinking and got into a heated exchange with someone he thought a vandal. Later, even the vandal didn't have a problem with it. Out of something like 15,000 contributions, one moment when he should have stayed off the Wiki was turned into, "You can never be an admin now." After that humiliation, his edit deteriorated--it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think an easy de-sysop process is probably the right solution, more than bitching at unfair opposes; I would agree with everyone there. But right now, I find the way people are treated in the RfA to be objectionable. --David Shankbone 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • RFA is about evaluating the candidate. If the candidate threw a tantrum and said stupid things, it's good that this kind of behavior would come out. It's good that people would oppose for it. When I see these kinds of complaints they generally sound the same to me: full of emotional words, but very short on any statements of substance. Maybe I'm missing what you're saying here but it sounds to my ear like the old saying about "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything." Well, this is not compatible with evaluating the candidate. People should say what they think, good or bad- that's precisely what the process is for. I don't see the problem. Friday (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm failing to see how it is "good" that good candidates are failing over what is often one mistake. If we see a seriously unsuitable editor, then they should not be made an admin, obviously. But good candidates who made a minor mistake are failing, and often candidates who haven't made any mistakes are failing, but are failing for being "too new" or "too good". We've just lost a load of admins. We should not be so strict on candidates. I don't get why people are. Majorly talk 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Agree with David and Majorly. People are opposing for such petty and stupid things now that they've become just as aceptable as serious problems with a user. This is why we're running out of candidates, just as much as there being fewer users. Why is adminship such an enormous deal now? Wizardman 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Why? Because it's effectively granted for life, as others have pointed out. Make it easier to desysop, and it will become easier to sysop. -- Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
              • It has always been granted "for life", yet in 2005 people were passing easily, with standards that such candidates would be laughed off the site at today. Why is anything different in 2009? Why should good admin candidates be barred from passing? Just because we have a few bad eggs does not mean that all are. They should not have to be put out because of people's irrational fears that they may go rogue. Even the best candidate ever may go rogue. Majorly talk 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                • This is true. Previous behaviour is indicative of future behaviour only up to a certain point. Good candidates going rogue should have shown us that not all good candidates are good admins; similarly, some 'bad' candidates can easily shape up. Ironholds ( talk) 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
            • (3ec)Agree with MF. If we had a mechanism that actually worked, and didn't require an act of congress to desysop, then people would be more willing to support. Take Enigma for example, part of the reason he is getting opposes is because of fear of another Archtransit and people don't want to repeat that... and since it is almost impossible to desysop, it is easier to be tough up front. I should also note that part of the problem isn't the RfA regulars---the issue is larger than just people who know how to spell RfA. At the same time, there are areas where the process here at RFA is being criticized as being too lax---letting too many unqualified people through! I've mentioned ANI before, ANI has become a joke lately because it is a clique... stand by your admin. And this is because people are rallying around their friends/coleagues, not actually addressing issues.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
              • (multi ec) (stars not colons today?) Going rogue would not seem to be the point - as is often pointed out very very few admins do that. Being incompetent is more the point. And an easy de-sysop process for incompet admins is something we do not enjoy - yet we should. (UTC) Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Erm, Archtransit was a master troll who was being incompetent on purpose. Comparing Enigma to him is just insulting to say the least. And in any case, he was desysopped within a couple of months, which is hardly a long time. An admin who makes mistakes in good faith can easily reform - they just are not given the chance. I still don't understand why good candidates are being barred because of an irrational fear they *might* not be good enough. We have always given adminship indefinitely. Yet this paranoia did not exist in 2005/6, and it should not exist now. There have always been a few bad admins among us, and yet the process was so much nicer in days gone by. Anyone who criticises RFA as being too lax either is not familiar with it, or has standards that are way above community norms. Majorly talk 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • I am not comparing enigma to anarchist (note I am supporting Enigma), but I think if there was an easier way to desysop, then those people who are oppsing him, wouldn't be as prone to do so... they'd be willing to give him a chance. but they just don't want to give the tools to somebody and have no viable way to remove them.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • That's a poor way of thinking. We should not be evaluating candidates on whether we can take tools back. We should be evaluating on whether we should give away. This is perhaps why this process is so horrible - people come here to look for reasons to oppose first, and will only support if there are no reasons to oppose. A sad outlook on life in my opinion, but there you go. We should look for reasons to support, not oppose. Majorly talk 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                      • That argument is clearly absurd. Hitler is an animal lover, so I'm supporting. -- Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                        • (ec) Disagree Majorly - that logic is broken on several levels. Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                          • You miss my point. People go to RFA and only support if there is a very good reason to. We should not be doing that. We should be supporting by default, and only oppose if there is a very good reason to. I'm not suggesting we only look at someone's good points, but I'm saying that we should not come to RFA looking for bad points to nitpick over. Majorly talk 22:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                            • I don't "miss" your point, I simply disagree with it. -- Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                              • No, you missed it, clearly, otherwise you would not have responded the way you did. Majorly talk 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
                                • Yes, he clearly missed it, and grossly so by comparing voting for Hitler to voting for someone who was sarcastic and snide about Huggle, or because they were drunk one night. Malleus, that was a pretty gross an stupid comparison to make and yes, it showed you didn't "get" Majorly's point. --David Shankbone 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
                                  • Perhaps it's you who fail to see my point? Just a thought. -- Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
                                    • No, your point was clear and inapt, and I addressed it before you made it above when I wrote, "Let me say this is as strongly as possible: The RfA's are getting fucking ridiculous....This isn't the freaking Supreme Court, President or even voting for a local dog catcher. It's Wikipedia. It's adminship." But I find it particularly odious that you would somehow think it fine to use Hitler, the greatest mass murder in history, in a conversation about admins. Otherwise, you reflected the exact wrong-headed thinking, and I consider elevating the admin process to the level of national elections to be arrogant (that was my point on Engimaman2's RfA about arrogance). We ain't a country, and whether one person of 1500 can have a mop and bucket on Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether someone should be handed the reigns of power of one of the most powerful countries on Earth. It's a website; keep things in perspective. --David Shankbone 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Unindent response to Shankbone - A few things: 1. Hitler is used all the time, and since Wikipedia is not censored (cussing is quite rampant), why remove all Hitler analogies? That would be unnecessary. 2. It seems like your language is reaching a point in which you should consider taking a break from responding for, if anything, your own health. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, Ottava, I can't tell you how sweet it is that you are concerned for my health. Rest assured, in real time, I swear enough to make a twenty dollar whore blush, and that I swear so little on-wiki is actually painful! I'm pretty low-class, but hey, that I'm not like you, and that you're not like me, is what makes the world interesting. Regarding "everyone talks about Hitler" I found that bizarre, and I also find the "everyone does it, so why it's not a big deal" logically fallacious. But hey, let me put it another way: if it's okay for someone to verbalize anything on Wiki, it's okay for another person to disagree with what they verbalize. Okey-doke? Regarding your reading comprehension, please review all my statements above. Nowhere once have I advocated for "removal of all Hitler analogies". This concerns me for your eyesight. However, if the things I write frighten you, or cause you such deep concern, I think it would be better for you just to ignore me. It won't hurt my feelings :-) David Shankbone 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything useful likely to come out of this gentlemen? I did miss Majorly's point, so it's probably my fault for poor comprehension, or his fault for not explaining it more clearly the first time rond. Neither of which matters. I'm not sure we're making progress here (mind you when WT:RFA=PROGRESS then PIG= FLYING....... Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, but one can always dream. Majorly talk 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I plan to make a proposal, so I think the discussion is helpful in gaging sentiment. And to voice discontent. --David Shankbone 07:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

←When you do, make sure you address the points that have led to the litany of previous desysopping proposals (there's an informal list at the bottom of WP:RFDA) failing. Stifle ( talk) 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Community bans are regularly proposed in threads on the admin noticeboards. Why not propose desysoppings there too, if the admin in question has been a dick?-- Patton ^{t/ c} 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad-hoc desysops traditionally do not happen without Jimbo or ArbCom's blessings, except in cases of compromised accounts. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that crats and ArbComm members don't !vote in RFAs, have I got that right? If so I can well understand that the crat whose going to close an RFA, and to be safe the crat who will close that RFA if the first crat is suddenly no longer available can't !vote in that RFA. But are there any other groups of editors in good standing who we bar from !voting at RFA, what are the reasons for barring them and does the gain from that reason outway the disbenefit to Wikipedia of losing their input to that process? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, just Kurt and IPs, both of which are fairly understandable really. Broadening the franchise is not the issue; all registered users (within some boundaries) are allowed to !vote, most of them just avoid RfA like the plague. Out of a community of 10,000 we get maybe 200 (at the highest) comments per RfA. Ironholds ( talk) 16:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule saying that bureaucrats and ArbCom members can't !vote in RfAs. ArbCom doesn't because... well, just because they decide not to, I guess, and bureaucrats don't because we have to stay neutral. If a non-admin wikifriend of mine were to come up on RfA, I'd have to recuse myself from bureaucrat participation anyway, so I'd happily !vote for them. The only other "group of editors" that are barred from RfA participation are IPs, since you must be logged in to !vote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK well if its a convention rather than a rule that stops Arbs and noninvolved crats !voting, does anyone think thats a good convention and if so why? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbs not voting isn't something I'd ever thought about until now; I'd wager that they've got too many other things on their plate to deal with rather than investigate each and every candidate (in theory, RfA participants should be doing more than a brief scan of contribs and talk pages). As for bureaucrats, we tend to not participate so that we are neutral when we close an RfA; any bureaucrat that failed an RfA they opposed or passed an RfA they supported would very quickly find themselves stripped of their bits. (as for bureaucrats that close an RfA the opposite way that they !vote, there'd just be a lot of confusion as to why they didn't just allow another bureaucrat to close; it's not like there are only three of us to do the duties) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I might suggest that Arb's and Bureaucrats tend not to !vote at RfA due to possible concepts of undue weight given to their votes (ie "wow, Larry voted for him...he must be really good/really bad). It may also not help in re-election if you voted for someone who turned out to be a tool-abuser :-P ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several arbitrators who regularly vote in RFAs - Casliber, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse and Wizardman are just some names. Also several bureaucrats do - Rlevse, Rdsmith4, Nichalp, Taxman, Kingturtle, Biblomaniac15... Majorly talk 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't !voted in an RFA since I became a crat IIRC, it's so I can stay neutral if I'm the closer. If I did !vote, I would not close it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I support candidates that I know so well that I would be probably be biased in closing their RFA. If something might lead me to favoritism if I were to close, I'd rather just support. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Other than including IP people (no, bad idea) the 'franchise' cannot really be broadened. The problem is that so few of the people allowed to comment actually do; same as elections in the UK. 60-odd million can vote, wonderful; the validity of the election is challenged somewhat when 40 million of them stay at home to watch the rugby. Ironholds ( talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt 60 million people in the UK are enfranchised Ironholds - the population is under 70 million and sufferage requires one to be 18 (amongst other things) Agree with your general point though particularly the Rugby Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be 100% accurate, just to provide an example. I'm not advocating mandatory !voting; I think 10,000 comments at an RfA would cripple it, especially when 9,900 of them really don't give a shit in the grand scheme of things. (pardon my language). Ironholds ( talk) 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, that would blow WP:100 clear out of the water... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What if 99% of the 10,000 were neutral? Useight ( talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It'd still be 9,900 people agreeing on something (albeit they'd be agreeing that they're all neutral). Still a fairly momentous occasion, just one seeped in oddity. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"The problem is that so few of the people allowed to comment actually do". Be careful what you wish for... Skomorokh 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As said above crats and arbcom can vote... but a crat shouldn't vote if there is any chance of their closing the RfA, for the same reason than an admin shouldn't close an AFD they voted on.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats !voting is definitely okay, as long as we recuse ourselves. And I'll add that a Bureaucrat's !vote should be given no more or less value than any other editor's !vote. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say, but you said it better and clearer.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom members even nom editors for adminship, see this one where the two co-noms are both sitting members of ArbCom: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Climie.ca - MBK ₀₀₄ 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That condition should only apply if there is a conflict of interest. Hey, if I !vote for someone and the person gets 100% support, its hardly a COI to promote the person. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Arbs and Crats both vote and just recently. Who told you otherwise? Thats a little odd. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to name my source here, but I will make them aware of the thread. My original query has been fairly comprehensively answered but has provoked some interesting discussions, so I hope I haven't wasted people's time by raising this. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 10:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Back to the issue of broaden the franchise, any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to !vote. The only group of editors excluded are anonymous users, banned users, sockpuppets, and blocked users whose blocks cover the entire length of the RfA.

As for broadening the franchise, I think that all the editors who want to participate, participate. There are a number of reasons why editors don't participate, ranging from being too busy, not caring, hating the system and hating the cabal. If you want to broaden the franchise then (just brainstorming here) maybe: improve the RfA system, have Wikipedia Signpost write an article reminding editors of the RfAs and asking editors to participate more, create an advert doing the same thing, or post the RfX Report permanently atop the watchlist (although that last one might piss off more editors than we'd recruit.) Again, I'm just brainstorming. Kingturtle ( talk) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New accounts can't vote either. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought they could, just they will always be tagged with "This account is brand new" or something along those lines. I've never seen a newbie account's !vote indented, just identified as such... and I've seen people telling IP's to create an account and then voting.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 02:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but I can recall accounts that were created after the RfA started that had their !votes indented. On the Simple English Wikipedia, editors who created their accounts after the vote started will have their comments officially indented. I'm unsure if this is policy here on en, but it seems like this would inhibit IPs from editing even if they register accounts. Malinaccier ( talk) 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New accounts can't vote because the of the cascading semiprotection. I know it works because it happened when my wife created her account. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I remember seeing, I think new accounts (those longer than four days) are usually marked as "This account has few edits", accounts under four days can't edit the page because of semi-protection, while IPs have been indented, struck, or removed outright. Useight ( talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no cascading semi-protection on WP:RFA. Otherwise, neither un-autoconfirmed accounts nor IPs could edit. – wodup – 05:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that was it. I guess that sorts that out. Useight ( talk) 07:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, back to discussing Kingturtle's point. I think that a lot of editors do advertise RfA in the form of a table on their userpage. Ideally we want to improve the system, but maybe the first step in this is to attract new users to WP:RFA for a different outlook. Malinaccier ( talk) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are going to do that (attract new users). Over the summer break I decided that I should get involved as a responsible member of the Wiki Community. However, what started as doing my "duty" by doing careful research and thinking long and hard about my comments before commenting on three RfA's has turned into bemusement as I watch the same people trotting out the same arguments - sure they've swapped the arguments around but the arguments are still the same. The opposes group into "too new", "too young", "too inexperienced", "too dangerous" and "not enough edits in XXX (pick your favourite area)". The supports group into "why not", "I like him/her", "unlikely to do any harm". The neutrals just combine arguments from the two groups. Having now watched several more RfA's which are mostly full of bickering of the sort that I thought I'd left behind in my primary (grade) school playground, I've decided that enough is enough. I have spent far too much time here reading arguments when I could have been working in other areas of the encyclopaedia. As a result I am going to remove the RfA page from my watclist and withdraw from further participation in this process that seems to be nothing more than an ego-trip. Oh, and for anyone who still believes that Adminship on en.wikipedia is "no big deal", I've got a bridge for sale. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 04:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why the RfA process must be fixed (I know perennial proposal blah blah). But as I was saying, perhaps if newer editors were to join the RfA process, there new perspectives would form. Just a thought. Malinaccier ( talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You decided you 'should get involved as a responsible member of the Wiki Community' and did 'careful research and thinking long and hard about my comments before commenting on ...RfAs'. If 50 people joined the RfA-related 'community' with that attitude we might have a way of changing something. I support the idea of a Signpost article as well. Ironholds ( talk) 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• They do. We have seen some taking the role of a nominator. On the inverse, though not likely to happen here, there were actually concerns at ArbCom elections that questions/oppositions by sitting Arbs on candidates are in a way, "kiss of death". - Mailer Diablo 08:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So, why not make it easier for someone newly-visiting RfA to actually !vote. For example:

Having read the above and viewed the editor's history, I (radio button for Support Oppose Neutral), because I feel that (text box to allow required freeform comment).

Yes, we all should know how to edit Wikipedia, but some noobs are still freaked out a little. Just an idea. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 12:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me crazy or cranky (your choice), but if they are so new that can't edit the 'pedia, then WTF are they doing !voting, and whyTF should we listen to their opinions? They are valid human beings, and all, but the odds that they know what they are !voting about are slim ;-) Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 13:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The odds are there though. I won't point to people, but there's a lot of admins who voted on RFAs very early on in their career. Nothing wrong with that, just that they were clueful enough to find it. I for example nominated my first user (unsuccessfully) within about three weeks of actively editing. Although they failed, I nominated them again a few months later and they passed without a single oppose.

The person may also be from a sister project, or may have edited with an IP, or may have seen the link on someone's talk page. So many reasons to allow, so few to not allow (other than paranoia). Majorly talk 14:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

People don't vote because we go to extreme great lengths to state that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nowhere in any of our welcome templates do we say "blah blah 5 pillars, blah blah ask for help, blah blah by the way we !vote for admins and you should check it out" (I'm contemplating building one, seeing as I already have some personally-created welcome templates that have been well-received). It's never raised as part of our role as editors, or our "community duty" to become involved in !votes. Indeed, many of our less "interested" editors might actually take !voting as an opportunity to screw the system, or indeed for more vandalism of a !voting process. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 12:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't participate at RfA (well, much) for one simple reason -- I don't know many people at Wikipedia anymore; it's the village -> big city effect. (Have a look at my nomination for a sense of how times have changed.) Once upon a time, I had a sense of every other editor here, & as long as a person wasn't an obvious troublemaker while showing a serious interest in Wikipedia, that person got my support. Years have gone by, & its been a long time since I recognized more than one or two names at a time there. Having a set of questions is helpful because of this lack of familiarity -- but nothing really beats that warm fuzzy feeling of trust in a person to decide to cast a support vote. Too bad the job of Admin has morphed from a first step towards becoming a full-time Wikipedia volunteer (so speak) to some kind of status symbol maongst the community. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hear hear. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)