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 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

With all this talk of the RFA process being broken, or needing revision, or needing less rubbish on the top, an important (or at least fun) milestone is creeping up on us: Wikipedia will soon have 1,000 Administrators on the English-language edition: there are 988, as of today.

For those of you who aren't already admins, this might be an interesting time to toss your name out there. For those of you who are already admins, maybe you've got someone you consider a great editor who would make a good candidate. Now might be the time to start asking. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to say you were/nominated/helped promote the 1K Administrator? :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I also envisage a race among the 'crats as to who will promote the 1000th admin. :D Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be priceless. ;)-- Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How exciting! 856 and counting... -- nae' blis 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let the countdown begin! :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to bet that the 1000th admin will turn out to be a rouge admin. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think so? -- Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a cool little thing we could put on the rfa page:

{{#ifexpr: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} < 1000|We still haven't got 1000 admins yet..... only {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} which means we have {{#expr:1000 - {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} to go!|<div style="background: lightgreen; border: 3px solid green">WE have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} admins, which means we have reached 1000!!!!!</div>}}

which generates

We still haven't got 1000 admins yet..... only 856 which means we have 144 to go!

GeorgeMoney ( talk) 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would we want a huge bit of javacode just to generate the sequence of characters Expression error: unrecognised punctuation character ","? Surely if we wanted that on the page, we could just type it in ourselves. -- Tony Sidaway 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No. — Centrx→ talk • 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because. — Centrx→ talk • 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because why? GeorgeMoney ( talk) 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Duck season! -- Durin 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you'll start a fight and people will be squabbling to get there first. It's the same reason they don't have an official count of suicides off the Golden Gate Bridge. It's hard to believe but apparentlyh they worry it will be a magnet for people trying to commit suicide i.e. be the 1000th victim. Actually that analogy seems quite apt ;) David D. (Talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Point taken. -- Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment seems on point considering that the admin count can be easily manipulated by any admin (by a simple desysopping request). We've had a lot of those recently. Any more admins willing to take the plunge? ;) NoSeptember 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It would seem, based on the list of former administrators, that we passed #1000 promoted somewhere between 30 and 35 admins ago... -- nae' blis 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Given this observation Georgemoneys admin counter needs to look like this:

{{#ifexpr: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} < 1000|We still haven't got 1000 active admins yet..... only {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} which means we have {{#expr:1000 - {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} to go. However, since 40 admin have been desysopped for various reasons, to date, wikipedia has actually promoted  {{#expr:40 + {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} users to admin status.|<div style="background: lightgreen; border: 3px solid green">WE have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} active admins, which means we have reached 1000!!!!!</div>}}

To giv ethe following output:

We still haven't got 1000 active admins yet..... only 856 which means we have 144 to go. However, since 40 admin have been desysopped for various reasons, to date, wikipedia has actually promoted 896 users to admin status.

David D. (Talk) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by how things are going now, the 1000th admin is going to be either Netsnipe or Winhunter, depending on how Guinnog's RfA goes. -- Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got fifty bucks on Netsnipe. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do I foresee a bookmaking scandal at WP:RFA being exposed in the not so distant future? = P --  Netsnipe   ^(Talk)  19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, by getting resysopped, Jaranda has messed with our 1000th admin count ;-). NoSeptember 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

<vader>Noooooooooooooooooo...!!!</vader> --  Netsnipe   ►  18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well ignoring me, and it's likely Guinnog or Netsnipe, I don't count. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't ignore you, we haven't ignored all the other desysoppings and resysoppings that have happened of late. {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} = 856 NoSeptember 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well try to, I only regained adminship back to try to help out with those horrible backlogs in the images while I'm not editing much because of school and my soon going to be job in Best Buy, only coming for homework and hurricanes. Try to count the other one, as I don't want to be the 1,000th :p Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, you aren't. I only meant to say that you changed which RfA will be the one to make us hit #1000. As you can see from the red number above your post, you only raised the number to 997. The 1000th will happen in September. NoSeptember 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that Guinnog has been promoted, it looks like Xyrael will be # 1000 and September 2nd will be the date (The month of September is a good month for it :). NoSeptember 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I could really screw with you guys and go ask a former admin in good standing like Kim Bruning if they want their bit back. Which way was the betting going again? jk folks, move along, nothing to see here. - Taxman ^Talk 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Kim banking on his non-admin status to win a seat on the board? Even with 1000 admins, the non-admins completely outnumber us ;). NoSeptember 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems a good argument for not tracking who the 1000th admin is. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My goal was to get a rush of nominations out of this thread and more admins as a result. I think that did not happen :(. NoSeptember 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it did, but no one wants to mention it, for fear of that causing people to oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

2 to go! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How many people remember the one millionth user? They didn't make even one edit. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember the one millionth article. If a user is defined by signing up, not editing, then the measurement was flawed. Can we honestly count X on Wheels or NoSeptember is a XX as legitimate users? NoSeptember 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can! user:NoSeptember is a XX is a great user. Strong support. I thought this user already was a user. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, from whats going on right now there are 4 main possibilities:

• 1. Xyrael - closing 11:29 September 2 - current tally 52/6/4 (likely to succeed)
• 2. Netsnipe - closing 16:16 September 2 - current tally 55/3/3 (likely to succeed)
• 3. Winhunter - closing 23:14 September 3 - current tally 46/0/3 (likely to succeed)
• 4. Carnildo - closing 3:52 September 5 - current tally 97/61/9 (mmm... maybe)

Let the countdown really begin!!!! Like 1999 all over again!!! weeee!!! :D -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 07:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And the winner is User:Xyrael! -- tariqabjotu 11:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to promote xyrael, but Angela beat me to it by a few mins. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in creating a chart showing admin growth, similar to this one from German WP? NoSeptember 13:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. Do you know where I (or others) could find out how many articles existed on the English Wikipedia at a certain point in time? -- tariqabjotu 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a magic word for it, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, and I'm sure some people were tracking it. I think the place to ask would be the Village Pump. It may be in the history of m:List of Wikipedias. There should be a page tracking the historical number and I'm sure there must be one. In June I started a page to track the admin count number because we need to track that trend too, not just have the current number. NoSeptember 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics has the monthly numbers for each year. As a note to the topic, if there is some good to come out of this section, that might be finding and nominating more good candidates. The admin to be promoted when the count of current admins passes 1000 (the same way we counted the millionth article) has not been nominated yet. Go find the best candidates now. :) - Taxman ^Talk 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My best attempt to create a similar graph is at Image:En-admin-growth.png. I could not figure out how to get the line superimposed in Microsoft Excel; I'm doubting the creator of the German image even used Excel. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done! NoSeptember 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

. I've updated the above graph to include a series for article count (it is possible in Excel, just not obvious!) If someone has got a count of users per month I'll happily product a similar version for that. Petros471 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, because it appears to show that the ratio of articles to active admins is increasing -- surely a bad thing. Mike Christie (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well we used to routinely promote more than 1 admin per day, but now that rate has gone way down, so the fact that article growth outstrips admin growth is no surprise. NoSeptember 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Great piece of work. Well done! -- Guinnog 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The number of users per month is at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm -- nae' blis 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

These are indeed excellent, thanks. This seems to show that we're starting to fall behind in our admin:article ratio and have been seeing a significant and widening gap since around the beginning of this year. It would also be interesting to chart the number of admins applying during the same period; that might shed some light on how appropriate the standards we use are, at least against this metric. Gwernol 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you compare it, though? There's Image:RfAsPerWeek.png from November 2005, but it's only a small snapshot... maybe you could combine the data here with User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) somehow? It's such a small sample size, though... -- nae' blis 14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My admin stats chart includes RfAs rejected, which I get from my failed RfAs list. NoSeptember 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And, as Petros requested, an admin vs. "users with 10+ contributions" graph. I didn't spend too much time looking for the total user count, but I suppose that's for the best as we've gone from one million registered users to two million registered users in six months (hmm... that's a bit strange and that certainly wouldn't make for a lovely graph). However, as Petros pointed out, that data might still be useful in that the creation of frivolous accounts can lead to more work for admins (if they're vandalism-only accounts or inappropriately named).

So, here's an admin vs. "number of edits per month" graph; that should be more useful than a total registered account graph. Anyway, I suppose I'll step away from the graphs now... -- tariqabjotu 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks. Now I can say 'we need more admins' with a bit more confidence... (As if the current at least 8 admin backlogs wasn't enough say so!) Even if you take into account bots doing more work (both increasing the edits per month count and taking *some* of the load off admin RC patrollers, it still seems pretty clear that we do need more admins promoted per month than is happening now. Petros471 16:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The admins vs articles graph is interesting. It seems the natural number of articles per admin is around 1,100. We've held steady on that number for most of the history shown on the graph - the one time we strayed from it (the 2nd half of 2005), we had a sudden increase in promotions to bring it back to that ratio. If that's anything to go by, we're due for an increase in promotions now. -- Tango 16:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a graph... a 4 line graph with the lines 1)articles, 2)edits, 3)users, 4)admins, and start it at January 2004 for better detail. NoSeptember 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This was the best I could do on that one. The problem I came across is that those four data series have different scales. To force them to be close enough for comparison purposes required me to apply a different scale factor to each of the article, user, and edit series. Therefore don't try and obtain numbers from this graph- it exists purely as a trend comparison. Hope that makes sense (if not just use the other ones above!) Petros471 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed how growth in number of admins is roughly linear, while growth in number of edits appears exponential? Ut oh. Kim Bruning 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly my reaction, too, Kim. If RfA continues as it's going, there is no way the Admins will ever be able to keep up with demand. The people !voting on RFA just don't understand that their !votes are causing larger and larger backlogs. Every day we reject another person who wants to help, we're just making the few Admins work harder, and more junk will get through. How do we know it's not getting through already? Firsfron of Ronchester 10:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Something else to think about: On Jan 1st of this year we listed 42 inactive and 23 former admins (total: 65), today we list 83 inactive and 40 former admins (total: 123). So two of the eight months of this year, we have been merely promoting admins to replace those who have left. Attrition rate increasing, promotion rate decreasing, while edits keep exploding. NoSeptember 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a graph of amount of RfAs in general per week/month? There are only 7 RfAs now, but I remember there often being about 14 at once several months ago. Is the amount of people applying going down? -- Rory096 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's this graph, but it needs some updating. However, based on the data already in the graph, I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you can do a graph of number of policies (and if possible, kb of policy) & number of administrators over time? It grows ever harder to learn everything one ought to learn to become an effective administrator. I suspect policy is outstripping the guardians of policy implementation. Williamborg (Bill) 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes one more graph idea, but it is useful! All this is great but moreuseful might be a graph of number of articles per active admins. That would inconclusively show the need for more admins. I agree though with hwhat has been said above, we are currently only replacing admins that have retired or become inactive yet the article count is still increasing!It looks like my RFA is going to failk (well there wasnt much hope really), I'm not bitter just sad i cant help out in another way. I am certain I will be able to in th future but for now... I also think that alot of experienced and rewgualr editors are not getting nominated for adminship - all of whom would pass with flying colours. And they don't dare self-nom as people dont seem to like that. It's a tricky situation all round and evantually I am sure it will work out, but for now things are in the balance. --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. The point about the amount of policy to get to grips with is a good point. At some point it will take users longer to become experienced enough to be an admin, simply because they will take longer to read through a reasonable amount of policy and get to know the ropes in certain areas. As an example of specialisation away from certain areas, I've personally always avoided this thing called RC Patrol, mainly because I've never liked the idea of stalking vandals and swatting them, necessary though it is. Also, the more policy and guidelines bloat out of control, the more likely it is that current admins will start to become out of touch with what is happening 'on the ground'. Though the anarchic aspects of Wikipedia are there, it is possible for people to feel that they know it all, when in fact they very rarely do. I've often seen even obviously experienced admins taken aback by things they hadn't come across before. Also, as the number of ordinary users outstrips admins by a greater amount, they will find and tag things for admins to do, increasing the backlogs. So yes, more admins are needed it seems. Carcharoth 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the Village Pump about whether some separation of deletion capability from other admin powers might be useful. One response was that a generally finer granularity might be a good approach. This could complicate RfA dramatically, of course, so there's a big downside. However, it does seem to address the specialization issue, and might speed up the ability of certain editors to acquire certain bits. What if Carnildo, whose current RfA is clearly going to fail, had been able to request just the deletion bit? There might well have been a consensus to give him that. If vandalfighters had the rollback bit, and more experienced vandalfighters had the blocking bit, and deletion reviewers had the deletion viewing bit -- would that help with keeping admin growth up? I would think RfA would remain the primary venue, with the alternatives routes only taken for those whose experience or history did not make a successful RfA likely. Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to revive Requests for rollback privileges. Personally, I think the atmosphere here at RFA has changed since it was first proposed, so with a bit of tweaking, it may have a shot this time. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

why is voting entirely optional? so if by some random chance only 10 people vote within the week and 8 of them vote yes, itll go up for final review and passed. how does this ensure candidate is even the right person for admin duties? and how much of the edit count do you people take into account towards your vote, and what significance does edit count even mean towards administrative duties. why not require a percentage of the entire collection of admins and/or mandatory voting? why are special priviliges like admin rights only given to registered users? other than the reason of ip spoofing/changing 68.161.183.243 00:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that only 10 will vote, and if it does happen it is up to the beaureaucrat to decide. Edit count is often taken into account, because it shows the person has been around a while and will be familiar with Wikipedia. Registered users can get the "mop" because they are seen as more reliable than an anonymous user. Hope this helps. -- Alex ^{(talk here)} 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I think the reason is more to do with the fact that anonymous IP accounts are by definition unsafe (they can't be protected with a password, many are shared etc.). Like with registered users, I have encountered some fantastic anonymous users and I have encountered some real jerks - being registerd is neither here nor there. Mandatory voting would be nearly impossible to enact as there is no way to enforce it. Only allowing the admin pool would be divisive, giving the impression that administrators are some form of over-class and are vetter qualified to make judgements than everyone else. Rje 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

but administrators are otherwise all users would be allowed to delete restore protect etc. normal average users are less likely able to judge the abilities of a would be administrator as well as administrative peers would be. mandatory voting as in the case will not proceed until a certain number of users and/or admins have voted. out of almost a thousand users granted administrative rights and thousands more users, a hundred votes is practically negligable. that said, how many of the thousand administrators do you believe is qualified to have admin rights? edit counts can also be easily falsified and the numbers themselves say very little other than how many times a person has decided to change anything, simply by themselves they say little on how well they know the guidelines and policies administrators have to watch over. i am also wondering if there has ever or will be a global administrative review? i know at a thousand admins it would be a hassle but if they were periodic, say every three years since a user has been granted admin rights, they would have to go up for a review if they wish to keep the rights. but then that would also fall under the same problem i see in various places, a lack of significant number of votes. 68.161.183.243 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The software running the site has no capacity to grant privledges to individual IP accounts. Dragons flight 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With IPs changing now and then, that would be a problem. Michael 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this protected...? Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By "this" I assume you mean the RfA page itself? I believe because it has been the target of considerable IP vandalism whenever it has been unprotected. Gwernol 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The RfA page has actually been the target of minimal vandalism; those supporting protection of this page tend to argue that anonymous users just don't need to edit it. It was protected for two weeks in February, another two weeks in April, the month of June, and then just protected again last week on the basis of preventing 'fake RfA additions'. See the protection log. ~ PseudoSudo 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition the vandalism problems, there is also no disadvantage to it. There is no reason why an IP or a 3-day old username would need to edit the main RfA page; everything except a few sentences is split off into (unprotected) subpages and it is not a problem that any minor edit to those few sentences would need to wait a few hours for an "established" user to add them (and for major ones they need discussion here first anyway). While the level of vandalism here would not warrant any longer-term protection of an article, this is not an article and in a way it is not even a policy or process page: it is a skeleton that links other, editable pages. — Centrx→ talk • 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claim of anonymous users having 'no reason' to edit the page is not valid. First of all, active anonymous users are as entitled to submit nominations as any other user with a registered account is; please challenge me on that point if you don't buy it. Second of all, personally I've never written up a nom but yet have still edited this page a half-dozen times, fixing errors and de-listing other noms for various reasons; there's routine maintenance work on this page to be done that can be performed by anyone who wants to. We are a wiki that anyone can edit. ~ PseudoSudo 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

idealy anyone can edit. in practice so far that i have seen, admins step in and revert edits they dont like instead of attempting to fix or flag for someone else to 68.161.183.243 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The nominated candidate can add their own RfA nomination to the main page, they have to accept the nomination and answer the questions anyway and it shouldn't be added before they agree. Anonymous users shouldn't be de-listing RfAs and it doesn't save any effort, someone would have to check that the de-listing was proper anyway, and it is not a problem if a malformed RfA is on the page for a few minutes or even hours. What are the errors and routine maintenance work you are talking about? I clicked on 25 random diffs, all of them were users adding their own nominations, well-established users removing bad-faith and malformed nominations (none of which would it have been appropriate for an anon to remove), and bureaucrats closing RfAs. The only two IP edits in that selection were one adding an RfA page that didn't exist, and another blanking the page. Note that if you mean fixing up something in the "About RfA" header, that is a separate, unprotected subpage. — Centrx→ talk • 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In this section, I'd be surprised to see many anons wanting to participate. There is no reason not to make an account if you wish to do this. Michael 00:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is just to point out that we have a Bureaucrat nomination pending. It seems to have been near-universally overlooked because RfB's are added to the bottom rather than the top of the RfA page (perhaps some sort of additional reference at the top of RfA would be worthwhile). The RfB nomination raises some issues that are worthy of discussion and it would be good if more RfA participants weighed in both on the candidate and on the issues raised. Newyorkbrad 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Our last RfB (Redux's) drew 80 opinions back in June and it too (IIRC) was in the same place on the RfA page. I don't think the position on the page is what's driving the low turnout for Ram-Man's RfB. I will note that the number of opinions on all RfAs seems to have dropped over the last few months - this is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but my impression is we were getting around 80 on most RfAs early in the summer and are now seeing 60 on average; I'd love to see the actual numbers. My guess is that not many people have strong opinions they want to express about this particular candidate, but maybe there are other factors? Gwernol 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just the location. When I come to the RfA page, I generally look to the top of the list and see if there are any new additions. Due to how scarce it is that someone is nominated for RfB, the location is a problem. Michael 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Any problems with moving RfB's to the top? Since they're rare enough as it is the introtext can easily be ignored by users looking for new RfA's. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is "Requests for Bureaucratship" (RfB) does not have a forum of its own (and it really doesn't need it), but rather it "borrows" space in the Requests for Adminship (RfA) forum. It would make little sense for people to come to RfA and find RfBs at the top -- it's not only the transclusion of the eventual RfBs, but also the instructions that would need to be moved. And plus, there doesn't seem to be a practical need for any of this: first, and more importantly, because RfBs get included in the TOC just the same, so only someone with little experience might never see it -- of course anyone could miss it once or twice, but it runs for a week, so sooner or later they see it on the TOC; second, and this relates to the first reason, because, normally, only more experienced users participate in RfBs, and they know their way around this forum well enough (or even have it watchlisted, so they notice the transclusion of the RfB). Redux 13:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't !vote on Ran-Man's RfB because I 1) didn't know the candidate and 2) was effectively neutral after reading the arguments presented, they didn't convince me either way. This could have been true for others, which would explain the (slightly) reduced number of !votes on that particular RfB. I'm pretty sure if a seriously popular (or unpopular) candidate appeared at the bottom of the page, people would find it! Petros471 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone has aggressively archived this page... Anyway, it seems we still don't have support/oppose/neutral sections for ease of editing despite (I thought) consensus to do it. Also, when editing the page it's hard to find the tally for updating. Edit conflicts are all too common on RFAs and we need to improve the layouts with this in mind. If it breaks a bot or a script so be it, they'll have to update it - Wikipedia pages are for editors first and foremost, not programs :) -- kingboyk 09:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Can we have section headers please? -- Ligulem 09:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Voice-of-All 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, I'd say, its so hard finding the tally, i can't be bothered to update it, let alone find it. Plus, when I was writing even this I had an edit conflict. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 20:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no, no! It creates the most ridiculous TOCs as soon as the page gets any busier than its current very quiet state. This is why they've never flown before. No section headers. Just edit patiently. You've got a week, there's no need to !vote right now! - Splash - tk 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Splash, there's a technical solution for the TOC problem and has been for a while. The form contemplated now puts a TOC into the individual nom tha thas the individual sections but they are NOT present in the overall RFA page TOC.. only the noms themselves are, but none of the sections within the noms. This was prototyped and shown to work. Do you still think this is a bad idea? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Can you point me to the prototype? (I think this would be useful in some articles, too.) - Splash - tk 13:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

As I understand it, it's dead simple (we had a much more complex one that involved wacky things)!!!!... surround the headings with noinclude tags like this:

<noinclude>==</noinclude>'''Support'''<noinclude>==</noinclude>

The effect is that when transcluded there are no headings, only bolded "support" etc but when not transcluded, clickable headings. If you want to get fancy you can also include edit links but that's not needed. It's been tested and it works. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A prototype can be found in Eagle's RfA if you go back in the history, these were there when it went live but someone removed them out. ++ Lar: t/ c 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: the actual headers would be done with === rather than == as shown in the example above, sorry about that. ++ Lar: t/ c 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work. Since Template:RfA is a template, those noinclude tags apply to it, so all that comes out on the RfA subpage is "'''Support'''. -- Rory096 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All fixed. -- Rory096 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lar, Rory096. If whatever Rory096's fix was makes whatever wasn't working work then I see no downside to this. Just as long as we don't finish up with a FA-length TOC this time next week! - Splash - tk 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted myself as it's screwing up both Mathbot and Tangotango's tool, and maybe more that I don't know of. I've notified Oleg Alexandrov, Tangotango and Dragons flight of the change. Are there any other bot/tool operators that I don't know of? -- Rory096 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, if you're going to use section headers in large/complex RfAs to avoid edit conflicts, use something akin to the following format:

<includeonly>;Support</includeonly>

<noinclude>====Support====</noinclude>

The first is shown on WP:RFA, the second is shown in the individual nomination. Thanks; this format doesn't break dragon flight's RFA summarizer. -- nae' blis 06:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For an RFA put up a person's name, a tally, a support, an oppose and a neutral. Nothing else. (no sections headers either they are a pain.) NO other crap, no edit counts, no gushy noms, no questions, nothing. This way, if you know the person you can make an intelligent entry on the RFA. If you don't, you have to go research their qualifications on your own, and can't just sheep onto the info regurgitated for you by other editors. Anyone who comments "support, this guy is kewl!" will look like an idiot and it will be immediatley obvious who didn't do their homework. Let the info come out in the wash and people's comments. (OMG a *real* discussion!) Make it simple and FORCE PEOPLE TO THINK FOR ONCE. pschemp | talk 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This makes way too much sense to ever work. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Too easy to get around. People will just put up a lot of "oppose per" and "support per" and/or will just spend the few seconds it takes to get the edit counts. The current system for its problems is working well. JoshuaZ 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, that's exactly what they do now. How would this make that worse? I think the current system is too full of crap one must wade through. pschemp | talk 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea, but I think if three people oppose in the beginning, most others will follow in suit instead of doing research for themselves. Michael 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, they do that now anyway. This can't stop people from being idiots totally, but at least people won't have to wade through paragraphs of crap to see it. pschemp | talk 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is true. Michael 01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA is not a vote, it's a discussion. Simply posting votes is anti-Wikipedian culture. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic? Michael 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposal was to not include anything but votes, obviously. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not if you read it. I didn't even use the word votes. Discussion happens in comments. pschemp | talk 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. And if you simply posted a comment without an attached discussion you'd look silly. This moves the discussion to the comments, and lets it form there, rather than having the discussion pre-digested and written for you in all of the other stuff. It promotes discussion, whereas now you just read the crap and say something, you don't even have to think. Its a simple and elegant way to organize and force discussion. pschemp | talk 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does your proposal say anything about posting to the Talk page? User:Zoe| (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, nor did I say it did. An "attached discussion" goes in the comment (what you are calling "votes"). the point is that when you make your comment in support or whichever, you support it with a discussion of your reasons right there. This makes listing edit counts, etc not needed as discussion takes place in the comments people post. pschemp | talk 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If this change were made, people would be forced to discuss rather than have everything laid out for them. Michael 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And Zoe, people usually discuss on the RfA itself. Michael 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal makes absolutely no mention of discussion. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what is meant by "intelligent entry". One with reasons and facts attached to it. That is a discussion. pschemp | talk 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zoe here, the proposal makes this sound like turning RfA into a blatant vote/poll with no mention of discussion (we were just supposed to assume that part?) Anyway, if someone doesn't discuss on the talk page, do we strike their uh... comment? If they don't discuss "enough" do we do the same? Who determines this? Are the b'crats (who'd be the most likely people to enforce this) even interested in this extra work, which would be considerable? Proposal leaves a lot of questions unanswered. And getting snarky with objecters doesn't help. -- W.marsh 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting snarky. Sorry if you think I am. To me "intelligent entry" means one with a discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I absolutely oppose just recording a support/oppose nuetral without a discussion attached to it. The purpose of throwing out this idea is not play semantics with the words I wrote, but discuss an alternative method of doing things. Agian, my definition of "intelligent entry" is one that includes a discussion and reasoning. You also are confused as I never proposed putting anything on a talk page, but instead a comment would say (for example) Support - This user deserves to be an admin because of blah blah blah and I looked at this contrib and I think he shows a good attitude here and so on and so forth. This creates no more work than what is already there. pschemp | talk 02:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with pschemp here. The present system may encourage the candidate to make lengthy statements, partly to avoid being accused of "not needing the tools" or having "poor answers to questions". The nomination could become a joint enterprise, ie the nominator and the candidate fill in a form (template) together (no self-noms), using an adaptation of the current three-questions format, then other editors support oppose or neutral, with brief evidenced reasons. Anything beyond a few words, and any additional questions and discussion should go on the discussion page, and should be strongly encouraged. Keeping the !votes and the discussion separate will aid clarity, and insisting on reasoned !votes will aid collegiality. Of course you will still have the problem of "per nom" or "per xxx" contributions. They could, I suppose, be marked as endorsements below the nom or the other user's !vote. -- Guinnog 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal says, For an RFA put up a person's name, a tally, a support, an oppose and a neutral. Nothing else.. Where does all of this talk of opposing support/oppose/neutral without a discussion, "intelligent" or otherwise, come from? User:Zoe| (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

People put their explanations beside their support/oppose/neutral. Michael 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up. Both you and pschemp are trying to force us to discuss something that you are not proposing. Until you actually propose something that you claim you are proposing, there is no point in further discussion. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp proposed it, and we clarified the idea. It's an idea for a proposal. You had questions. Michael 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't clarified anything. You're both talking around the subject by trying to claim that you are proposing something which you are not proposing. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an idea for a proposal. What, specifically, has not been answered? Michael 03:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is my last posting on the subject until the "proposal" is rewritten. pschemp's proposal said that there should be nothing on the RfA but a support, oppose, neutral. When I, then W.marsh objected, you and he both suddenly started saying, "no, that isn't what the proposal says, we said there should be discussion on the Talk page." No, that is what the proposal says, and you are not addressing my objections, you're merely attacking me for not being able to read your minds. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that refers to the physical format of the RFA when it is put on the page. It doesn't mean that's the end of the process. Then people add their comments in the appropriate section with their discussion/reasoning. (That's an intelligent entry). I'm not attacking you for anything. pschemp | talk 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is attacking you, and what was said was that voters include the discussion beside their vote of support/oppose/neutral as it is now (i.e. Support - great vandal fighter). That's the type of discussion, and as you know, people may also make discussions. The proposal was mainly to do away with the listing of the edit count, standardized questions, nominations, etc. Michael 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, this is a discussion about an idea, not a vote on the exact wording of something. Since when was I not allowed to clarify what I meant? I'll try again to help you understand. When an RFA is listed, the only headers put on the page are "Name, tally, support, oppose, neutral." Then, when people add their name under a header, they include a discussion of why they voted that way, right after their choice of Support, Oppose or Neutral. Each entry then looks something like: Support - This user deserves to be an admin because of blah blah blah and I looked at this contrib and I think he shows a good attitude here and so on and so forth. None of the questions or edit counts or any of the other info we currently plaster all over the page is included. This way, to make the Support/oppose reasons and discussion they type in the Support/Oppose/Neutral section right after the word Support/Oppose/Neutral be a real, intelligent, thought out reason, they will have to go look up the information themselves. All the extraneous info is not there for people just to copy. They must hunt it down themselves, so that when they post their vote/comment/disscussion in the appropriate section, it becomes a real discussion and not just a regurgitation of the other info listed on the page like we have now. pschemp | talk 03:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Michael 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even simpler version. Rfa is just like it is now, but no noms, questions or statistics are included and when people make a "vote" (which isn't a vote, its a comment) they add an original, reasoned discussion right after the word Support/Oppose/Neutral - using that entry as a discussion of the candidate. This way people have to do their own research before they vote so they will have something to say and because no other info about the candidate is provided. pschemp | talk 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would comments in the vein of "support per so-and-so" be prohibited? Are there really enough possible "original, reasoned" justifications to go around? Also, I'm afraid that under this system, users would still vote without research, but this time simply follow the crowd and make entirely uninformed votes, rather than drawing on the (admittedly limited) information about the user in the nomination and whatnot. — Dan | talk 04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But some users would do research, and those that do not may have a lesser desire to vote if they don't have something right in front of them that then requires little thought in deciding one's vote. Michael 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal sounds like a good idea. The whole "nomination" culture here is crap suboptimal anyway (it gives the false impression that sysophood is something like an award, which it isn't). Anything that helps moving to a more discussion like style on RfA's would be good. There should be more of a culture for working towards consensus, which means that panelists should think about all statements made by others and rethink their position if points are brought up by others. We need to benefit of the brain power of the whole group of panelists. We can't expect everyone to do a complete perfect deep scrutinity of their own. I generally fear that a lot of people never move their positions because they think it makes them looking imperfect: being bound forever to what one has said in the past ("I shall not be moved"). This is not a evaluation of all arguments. -- Ligulem 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found an interesting link about me [1] Hope this proves my past points about my RFA's.. — Moe Epsilon 02:55 September 03 '06

Which 'crat closed your RFA? This might be something to bring up with him. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but to be fair, only two of the oppose !voters have less than 500 edits, meaning that the sockpuppetry was minimal, at best. Ral315 ( talk) 00:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt many people on that site (other than the poster) have ever heard of you. Look at the responses. Michael 16:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the train of thought of " now for something completely different" for RfA, I thought I'd share something that came to mind recently: require that every !vote provide (at least) three diffs supporting their case for supporting/opposing/etc. In my mind, this would accomplish a few things, including:

1. Force people to actually look through the user's contributions (odds are you'll have to click on at least 10 diffs to get 3 good/bad ones)
2. Prevent a user from being condemned for one bad diff (mistakes can be forgiven; a pattern of bad edits should be investigated)
3. Make arguments better supported and help keep it from becoming a vote (would help stop simple "Support" or "Oppose" votes with absolutely no other comment, and would stop opposes to which someone responds, "Can you provide an example of this?")

And probably a few other things generally relating to informed discussion. Not sure how practical this suggestion is, but I figured I'd at least throw it out there for discussion. It's also completely possible that I simply need some sleep, which I will try to do right after clicking "Save page" here. I look forward to everyone discussing and completely demolishing this idea. Cheers, EWS23 ( Leave me a message!) 04:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

After some time, everyone would list the same thing. "Good user, good edit number, good talk page discussions." How could you enforce this, and how could you make it so everything couldn't be summed up together. On some RfAs, you may have one solid reason for opposing, in which case you may have difficulty coming up with several. Repeated bad behavior in one field is one such example. Michael 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea and I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's in the Wikipedia spirit to force someone to participate a certain way. Discussing RfA's are purely voluntary and one should be able to participate however one wants, be it a singular word (i.e. support, oppose, neutral) or a three hundred word summation the candidate. hoopydink ^{Conas tá tú?} 06:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, imagine making someone give three reasons for opposing - not one, but three. That would be awkward for both parties. Michael 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For supporting, providing a specific diff seems unnecessary. The qualifications for adminship concern a body of work. e.g., someone who's a long-time recent changes patroller has done a lot of good work that bears well on an adminship. A diff (or three) of vandalism reversion, however, is meaningless. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A little over a year ago, according to user:NoSeptember's data, we had around 18 RFAs going at once. That number has dwindled considerably since then, as more and more qualifications and barriers ("too many userboxes", "annoying signature", "no featured articles", "must have 7/24ths of edits in talk space") have been erected. We currently only have 5 open RFAs, some of which definitely will not be successful.

It seems pretty clear from users' edits that they aren't applying in part because they feel they would never qualify (Small sampling to back up this claim: here or User:Elkman/In case of RFA (deleted page)).

We're rejecting editors who want to help, often for really silly reasons. and we're driving away people who might otherwise apply. The backlogs are growing. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In my point of view, the some Admin in Wikipedia are horrible. I believe any reason is a good reason. I encourage voting.

So please withhold your judgement about the reasons in question.

There are so many bots and programs running Wikipedia, we hardly need any more admin. I suggest quality over quantity. As per request, I will be listing myself for Admin shortly. As well as voting again in the RFA's. While it seems I was a disruption to the RFA process. It's not serious enough, nor possible to block me for voting in the RFA. -- Masssiveego 09:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, Masssive. BTW, I've refactored your comments because you added some stuff to my sentences above, like "heer aggrivation of having horrible admin hawking over you. I hareasons". I don't even know what that means, or why it was added to my statement. Anyway, I agree that, in principle, requiring a few extra things could be good for WP, but in practice, it is driving away good editors in droves. Going from 18 to 5 applicants a week means we lose hundreds of helping hands every year. and I do not agree that we have enough admins: out backlogs say quite the opposite. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I don't think anyone's suggesting blocking you for RFA votes. Or if they are, that's news to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not always a proponent of idea that markets self-correct, but I wonder whether something like that will happen here. The admin growth chart section above implies to me that things are going to get worse before they get better. Presumably, as admins see the backlogs build, they (and to some extent non-admins) will start to wish for more admins, and to participate more in RfAs, and to be more inclined to support. That's not to argue that that's the best answer -- if we could promote good admins now, we could avoid the backlog, and the associated poorer quality of the encyclopaedia. But it may end up that way.

I should also say that as I gain more understanding of Wikipedia policies, my criteria for RfA are changing. I started voting less than a month ago, and my current standards ask for a minimum edit count (though I will waive that for the right candidate). I am now more and more convinced that what I care about most is whether (a) I trust the editor, and (b) they have learnt enough WP policy not to screw anything up while they are learning the rest. If the understanding of other editors of what it takes to be an admin changes, as mine has, then presumably the experience profile of the RfA voters makes a big difference to the outcomes. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It definently does seem like RfA is promoting only those who are squeaky clean to the point where it seems like they've acted robotically for their (brief-but-not-too-brief) WP careers. It's been called a reverse turing test - the current RfA detects humans who act like robots. So understandably, few people qualify... and I think fewer people are apprently bothering.

My suggestion? Don't oppose out of spite! Just because someone rubbed you the wrong way in an argument doesn't mean they won't be a good admin. Don't assume bad faith! If a good-faith editor has apologized for a minor to moderate mistake and says it won't happen again, it's really pathetic if 20 people still oppose because of something the candidate has said won't happen again. That's punative, not preventative. Oppose because you think someone will misuse the admin tools, or there simply isn't enough evidence to make that determination. Don't treat adminship like some kind of prize, and act like creating more admins makes your prize less valuable.

Anyway, RfA simply boils down to the people involved. If their quality is high, the quality of RfA is high. And vise versa. Better participation = a better RfA. -- W.marsh 14:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is just normal that standards advance as time passes. A 2004 FA article would have never been considered FA material today, as I noticed with Ford Mustang. Standards change, are polished, and usually become more restrictive. In soccer, 10 years ago, a player could pass the ball to a goalkeeper with a kick, who could pick it up with his hands. Now that would be a fault. Some years before, you were able to carry scissors on a plane. Now you are called a terrorist. I notice that now more people help with the requests (as in, comment, "vote", etc). Adminship isn't a big deal. If you are doing the things right, you are likely to get a chance. I feel it nice that simple edit count isn't enough to ensure your adminship. -- ReyBrujo 16:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's natural for editcount requirements to go up. But my point is that people are putting in new criteria by objecting to everyone they don't happen to like, or expecting people to have basically never expressed much personality at all, and refuse to accept an apology once they actually do. Others seem to oppose unless the candidate is of the same POV as them, etc. That stuff will never be a good "standard" to have, no matter how long wikipedia is around. -- W.marsh 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to the original inquiry, I should have pointed that :) Anyways, yes, some disregard candidates because of very strange conditions. However, from what I see in the Standard page, there are only a few that seem to imply "Depends on my mood", thus I am confident most votes are still based on Wikipedia namespace edits, interaction with users, participation in admin duties, etc. -- ReyBrujo 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rey (and Marsh and Mike, above) for your comments. I agree with W.marsh when he says some of the "standards" do appear to be based on "Do I like this candidate", or "Do I agree with his views". That's a bad standard to follow. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So far I've notice all kinds of excuses to discount my vote. From WP:Point, to Personal attack. So for some wierd reason my reasons also must follow completely certain guidelines of Wikipedia. If I don't give a reason it's a disruption, if I do give a reason it's a violation of policy. Even when the reasons are valid all kind of trouble seems to pop up. Still once it's clear what the safe harbor is for voting, then I'll vote again. As I said before we have some horrible crappy admin that seem to love to make some users lives miserable. The only quality control to ensuring the Admin coming in is voting. Even then I'm getting threats from admin that I'm a disruption for voting when I disagree with the majority. When I clearly state my reasons in every vote. Until I can get a second for a arbcom complaint, which in itself is difficult. Which would better clarify when asking for a the higher standard becomes a disruption.. When clearly all other rules have been followed.

Please note my talk page about User:MONGO User:Cyde -- Masssiveego 19:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Masssive,

I don't agree with those folks on your talk page who are saying your votes are disruptive. I'm saying that, in general, I feel RFA is becoming somewhat silly, with candidates forced to "tailor" their editing to match any number of criteria. We do need to "weed out" the bad candidates. But now we're weeding so much we've only got five veggies left in our entire garden! Firsfron of Ronchester 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Id kinda agree with this actually. Less people are being promoted and higher standards are needed. What was encouraging, I found, was that I failed my RFA mostly on the basis of my views on a certain policy. It was unfortunate it cropped up (I would have failed anyway I didnt self-nom and expect to pass really) but encouraging that few opposers cited edit counts. So policy approval is a good marker? well yes but then that view is subjective too. I think it all boils down to if you like and respect a user - and if you trust him with the tools. I really cant say if people are basing their !votes on that - but I fear (and I guess some of you do to) that they arent.

This is an issue that has been discussed before many many times and I dont think its going to change for the time being. In the future there will, I expect, be a sudden drought of admins and the revrse may happen (loads of unqualifieds passign through) but wee will have to wait and see. --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of the topic. The standards seem unusual. One person's standards for support seem the be the next's standards for an oppose in some cases. Michael 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the direction of RFAs is inevitable, and it's because of flaws in the process. For instance; someone above mentioned selecting candidates based on trust, and another editor mentioned that their votes are called 'disruptive'. If I were to vote against a candidate and say the reason was because I 'didn't trust' him or her, my contribution would probably be discounted. So I will comb through that candidate's stats to find something I can glom onto that will make my vote count. That 'something' is probably going to be edit count, mainspace edits, some conflict that ended badly, poor edit summary compliance, block history, gaps in editing, or some other essentially irrelevant statistic that is necessary to bolster the validity of 'votes', because unsupported opinions are discounted. It's inevitable, IMO. 'Oppose' editors are hounded, IMO. So of course they're going to try to justify their contributions with statistics (which are hard to argue against). Which is going to end up becoming part of the basic criteria through passive consensus. Anchoress 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone mentions in passing that the only problem they see is a low user talk edit count, another user may clamp onto this, using this as an excuse if he or she just doesn't like the user or has had disputes with the user. Michael 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. And after 50 RFAs where 20 editors all said 'Oppose per so-and-so, poor user talk edit count', even if that wasn't the real oppose reason, all of a sudden low user talk edit count becomes part of the criteria for exclusion. I personally think that an (established) editor should be able to say that they don't like a candidate, they don't trust a candidate, etc, and their contribution should be counted. Otherwise it just becomes successively more process wanking and wikilawyering. Anchoress 04:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to add in my two cents, I agree with Firsfron that the standards nowadays tend to scare a lot of good editors off. In the last few months, I've seen several candidacies by outstanding editors fail (or face opposition), often because someone points out a recent, often well-intentioned edit that may be seen as questionable (i.e. writing "rvv" on an edit summary when reverting an edit that's not blatant vandalism but a new or anon user's test). From reading some random oppose votes, I do get the impression that the editor's (entire) (recent) history are scrutinized by occasional editors who are looking for the slightest mis-step to constitute an "oppose" if the nominee is someone with whom they are unfamiliar with or have had less-than-wonderful encounters. Furthermore, I see a whole lot more users who have posted their voting standards than regularly vote in RfAs. Perhaps the bulk of these users rarely visit the page nowadays or are occupied with other tasks, but it seems like this has encouraged a mentality of declaring a personal standard, based on the standards of others, in which one only supports users with ___ edits, ___ weeks/months/years experience, ___ Wikipedia space edits, a ___-colored userpage, etc., which has become the basis of many RfA votes.

In general, I think the candidate's answers to the questions should be considered most relevant when browsing an RfA. In my opinion, inexperience/suitability can be better judged by the quality and content of those answers than an editor's date of registration, number of edits, or other qualifiers. Barring a history of vandalism/stubborness/aggressiveness, an editor who comes off sounding knowledgeable and experienced in those answers and making a cogent argument that being given admin tools would substantially improve his or her editing ability will likely, in my opinion, make a good admin. Fabricationary 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree with you, I doubt that would work, because I doubt many would support promoting a user who has only been on Wikipedia for a month and has 50 edits. In that case, people would just accuse the user of stealing answers from successful RfAs (i.e. "X-user answered his RfA that he would clean up the backlog. This user must be copying.") Regardless of how trivial, people will do it. Michael 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Michael. I doubt any user who's been here for a month and has amassed 50 edits 1) will answer the questions so well that his relative inexperience isn't evident or 2) will be able to copy someone else's successful RfA answers without someone noticing the copying or that the new user's stats don't match the work he or she says that he or she has done or intends to do. Fabricationary 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are always trolls, so we need to see some type of devotion to the project to even consider supporting. Michael 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the concensus had been to move the tally count back to the top as before (see previous discussion). Agent 86 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is probably just because no one has modified {{ RfA}} to reflect this. If you think consensus was to move the tallies, you might just consider boldly updating the template and seeing what happens. -- W.marsh 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Rory096 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Supported. – Ch acor 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also noinclude the votes to make the page more compact. Guy 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo was an admin who was caught up in an unfortunate argument for which he was deadmined. Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period, and in that time Carnildo has proved his loyalty and value to the project. While we recognize that there are many users who are opposed to his adminship, we believe that special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case and that we should act in the spirit of forgiveness and reconcilliation which is integral to the success of our community. Carnildo has shown good will to the project despite his desysoping, and continues to contribute. We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom. - Taxman ^Talk 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (On behalf of myself, Danny, and Rdsmith4, primary writing credit to Danny :)

I still would like to have seen a better explanation from Carnildo than we got. I wouldn't have done this myself, but then, I'm not a 'crat, and I don't know everything that the 'crats, arbcom, Danny, etc... know, and given that it's probationary I'm willing to support this. I will expect that a hard look will be taken in 2 months time. We choose our crats to make hard decisions. This obviously was one of the hardest they've done in a while. Support. Not that it matters whether i do or not but i'm just sayin... Oh, and Carnildo.. you MIGHT wanna hold off on adding yourself to category:Administrators open to recall for a day or two! ++ Lar: t/ c 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm stunned speechless. I've never had to fight so hard to avoid writing something I'll regret. This is not going to be good. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

All I will say is 61.2% is remarkably low for this to pass, even on a probationary basis. – Ch acor 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems the votes of 3 crats count more than those of over 70 mere peon Wikipedians. This goes against every notion of consensus, precedent or policy. If it were 71% I could see it, but 61?! It is nothing short of CORRUPTION, of the most base and petty sort, masquerading as "forgiveness and reconcilliation". Let's just do away with this charade called Rfa now and have Jimbo, the cabal, the Crats and the Arbcomm appoint admins at their pleasure. I'm none too surprised by this, but I am still sickened.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of corruption from someone who cast a vote on behalf of a banned user ring somewhat hollow. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How is it corrupt? Karmafist asked me if I would cast a proxy vote for him. I gladly did so. The Crats are, of course, free to count it, strike it or move it to comments as they see fit, long as it stays on the record. It would be small change compared to some of their other actions/statements here. If I'm corrupt, I'm only a student, they are the masters. I also find the latest ban on Karmafist to be especially petty and unjustified...but that is another issue.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

All I'd like to say is that we are an encyclopedia project. That should take primary focus above all else. We appreciate that some people would not be happy, but sometimes you just have to do the right thing anyway. We need to do whatever we can to focus efforts back on improving articles and minimizing the time we agonize over meta, organizational issues, as this one is. - Taxman ^Talk 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How very simple it must be for those of you with your right thing detection machines. Do they sell those at Fry's yet? I guess I should pick one up. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 04:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically you're saying "GET BACK TO WORK! NOTHING TO SEE HERE! MOVE ALONG!" The arrogance of power, vividly displays itself once more. A great number of us don't think you did the "right thing". This is not a Meta, organizational issue but one of fundemental policy and practice, which you choose to completely IGNORE. This isnt your project, it is Jimbo's. I wonder what he has to say on the matter?-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Like they say "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And power held for too long, absolute or not corrupts absolutely. This is as good a case as any in favor of term limiting admins and the crats who love them.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartly suggest anyone coming here with curses and lightning spells to take a break, drink a coffee or tea, and sleep. Indeed, there is no precedent for this, but there can always be a first time. Use common sense: if you complain, do it in a civilized way. -- ReyBrujo 05:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous cases of decent guys who were failed because of oppose votes made for very trivial reasons. Except for one very controversial instance, I can't remember any instance when someone was promoted despite getting less than 75%. If the b'crats continue to be bold enough to reject spurious opposes and promote people despite the cut-off, this would serve as a nice precedent. Otherwise, well.. Tintin ( talk) 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luigi30 3 passed at 72.4%. If I recall correctly, within that same timeframe an RFA failed at 77. – Ch acor 05:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, WP:OMG. -- Rory096 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that does not apply to my paragraph! I hide them well! -- ReyBrujo 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there sure are a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that bureaucrats are nothing more than vote tallying machines and that everything should be run by strict percentages. Well guess what ... that's just not how the system works. -- Cyde Weys 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone is aware that rfa is not based on strict percentages, but it is not is to say that the numbers should be completly ignored. I am deeply disturbed at this result, and very disappointed in the decision making process. If the arbcom wanted to re-admin him, they are welcome to, but doing by rfa where the result is a forgone conclusion regardless of the opposition expressed by many members of the community is quite insulting. Taxman's comment that it was the "right thing" was inappropiate in the extreme, as it belittles the concerns of many long standing members who honestly do not believe it was the right thing to do. I also think that the controversial decision is very harsh on Carnildo by putting him in a permanment spotlight, as any mistakes will not only reflect badly on him, but also reflect badly on the judgement of the bureaucrats. If this Rfa has shown anything it is that trust, once lost, is difficult to regain, and losing trust in one admin is nothing to losing trust in the bureaucrats as a group, and this decision has badly shaken my trust in them. MartinRe 10:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head here when you say, "Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain." In my view, that is a problematic attitude, symptomatic of what has happened to RfA. To much emphasis is focused on mistrust, past mistakes are highlighted, and good work is often ignored. There is no belief in a learning curve--that people can and do learn from their mistakes. So, for all the people who have turned "Assume good faith" into a trite little mantra that can be used or diregarded as it befits them, think of what that really means. Consider whether any past mistakes are forgiveable, or whether they are some indelible stain on the user that made them. If the latter, what kind of community would that lead to? As for the readminship of Carnildo, someone with whom I have had no dealings in the past, it was based not only on a tally of the votes but an assessment as well, something which lies well within the role of the bureaucrats. If not, the adminship process would be automated. Danny 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should be more open to promote admins and forget about that magic 70% wall (or whatever it was) we had in the past. What strikes me, is that this standard change had to happen exactly on Carnildo's RfA. We had a bunch of RfA's in the past which would have passed given this new standard you are doing now. One such example was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth. I'm sure we can find more to reevaluate. My point is that this sweeping change in standards should be applied equally. -- Ligulem 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not oppose that. Danny 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I said trust is difficult to regain - not impossible. There is nothing "problematic" about being cautious. If you read my comments on the RFA, I did not ignore the good work done, and I agree that past mistakes are forgivable. No stain should be indelible, but I believe that the user should at least have made a good effort to clean it themselves, or at least acknowledge that they got dirty. I do not believe that happened here, which is why I did not have the confidence in the candiate to support. As the rfa showed, a lot of other users did not have that confidence either. I also hope that the bureaucrats' assessment included the cost vs benefit of this promotion - was the addition of one extra admin worth the potential damgae to the trust of the community in them? Personally I think not. Regards, MartinRe 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't the sensible thing to do in that case be to simply drop the whole "trust from other editors" bit? We can have a process that attempts to determine (however crudely) whether a nominee enjoys the trust of the community, or we can have a process whereby we attempt to determine if the nominee is a good editor or trusted by the ArbCom/bureaucrats/WMF/whatever; but to run the latter in the guise of the former is the worst possible scenario, since it produces enormous resentment among editors who were under the (apparently mistaken) impression that their explicitly stated distrust of the candidate would have some actual impact on the process. Kirill Lokshin 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to judge the merits of this readminning, but the facts are that RFA is not a vote and percentages are only part of the rationale for promoting, not promoting or readminning.-- MONGO 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I voiced support for Carnildo, but to blatantly disregard many (over 70!) long-standing good-faith editors opposing with concerns just isn't right. – Ch acor 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no concrete percentage required for promotion; this, I assume, all those commenting above know. I should mention also that this particular RFA contained several votes from users of questionable legitimacy, as well as votes from legitimate users which were themselves spurious, including some which admitted complete unfamiliarity with Carnildo with the exception of a brief skimming of his arbitration case. I will not give a complete explanation of which votes were not counted, since it is neither my intention nor my place to give unnecessary offence to the oppose voters who did not consider the matter with due seriousness; nevertheless I feel obliged to mention the fact that this RFA, like many other contentious nominations, required close scrutiny before a decision could be made. — Dan | talk 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I opposed, but I see this as a fair compromise. This decision was not an easy one to make, and no one will be entirely happy, but what it comes down to, like Sean Black's re-promotion a month ago, is a judgment call. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia's most disgraceful day. There can be no going back now, every future RFA is condemned to be a meaningless charade dependent on how chummy the candidate is with the 'crats. No one will ever trust the 'crats or the process again. Wikipedia has soiled its bed now it must sleep in it. Giano | talk 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  I second Giano's disgust. Does WP have any debcrating procedures we could launch against Carnildo's buds? -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  I protest the suggestion that my part in the decision was based on my being "chummy" with Carnildo. I am not particularly familiar with him, and can recall no significant interaction. I made my decision based on users' votes and, for context, my reading of the relevant arbitration case. I am confident that the other two involved bureaucrats exercised similary impartiality. — Dan | talk 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So do you now plead incompetence instead of corruption, or temporary insanity?-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. I'm stunned. After you (Taxman et al.) have seen that this RfA "failed", you are going to promote Carnildo out of consensus. At least you could have had the boldness to do that before his RfA had started. It seems like our voices are not needed here anymore. A pure waste of our time. If you do have other such candidacies, then please readmin them now, so we can spare us the "consensus of idots" charade in the future. -- Ligulem 08:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the violation is blatant enough to be discussed in a separate WP:RfC and possible WP:RfAr (although after Mindspillage's vote I don't count on the present ArbCom too much). -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that someone fixes the lemma on the project page here. It wrongfully states "The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies". This is now out of reality. -- Ligulem 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cool off. There were such instances in the past. Bcrats know too well that, if their aberrant behaviour is not exposed in ArbCom, all their mistakes will be buried in the archives of this page, as have been in the past. The question is whether the community is willing to trust these bcrats any more. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the Peter Principle is alive and well here on Wikipedia, so as far as I'm concerned..hell fuck no.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to offer around some chill pills here. If Carnildo screws up, he'll be quickly deadminned, and any damage can and will be easily repaired. I'd like to see this treatment extend to other RfAs that haven't passed on ridiculous grounds. Ambuj.Saxena's and my second one come to mind. — Werdna talk criticism 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting standpoint. Can I start listing failed candidates here? ;-) This would give sysophood a strong boost I believe. -- Ligulem 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I don't think this is a retroactive thing. I personally think that a promotion should occur if the candidate gets simple majority support and a bureaucrat is willing to promote. — Werdna talk criticism 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with that majority idea. Just a bit odd to see it happen on Carnildo's RfA the first time. But well, let's give it a try. I was puzzled numerous times in the past why the hell oppose voices count three or four times the support ones. All I want is that we have a uniform standard. Otherwise RfA is going to be a cabal election ;-) I see my chances for sysophood are rising <looking innocent> -- Ligulem 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that in any official capacity. Heck, I'm not even an admin yet (although a lot of people think I am). And RfA is already a cabal election. There's a group of RfA-dwellers that you have to please to become an admin. — Werdna talk criticism 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO! Sorry to shout but the above thread is EXACTLY why this incident is so troubling. If one of Wikipedia's operating rules is that we make decisions by consensus, then we should stick to that principle EVEN when making exceptions. User:Werdna is suggesting that we abandon consensus for future RFA's and go to "simple majority plus a bureaucrat who is willing to promote". It is far, far better to say that the bureaucrats decided to make an exception for User:Carnildo than to decide that this exception now sets a new precedent for ALL future RFA's.

-- Richard 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what we have beaureaucrats for. Personally I'd be happy for 'reapplication for adminship requires a lower support threshold' to become a bcrat guideline. The Land 09:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think that idea may have merit, however those who have been involuntarily desysopped may require additional sensitivity. — Werdna talk criticism 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No. No double standards. -- Ligulem 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a very encouraging initiative by the bureaucrats. Nothing makes me more ashamed of Wikipedia than the disgusting rabble that RFA has become. Bureaucrats should take the initiative and award the bit on merit. Whether an editor can pass a "beauty contest" is of little use in deciding whether he'll wield the bit well. -- Tony Sidaway 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly, strongly agree. I'd like to see this happen more often. — Werdna talk criticism 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgo re-RfA if Arbcom says so?

"Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure..." OK, fair enough. Should, in future, what is supposed to be a temporary desysop not be brought to RfA but simply remain filed with the arbcom until they re-sysop at their discretion? Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this is fine. It's actually preferable to have a formalized means of skirting RfA, then to have an RfA nom and ignore long-standing promotion standards. Marskell 09:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom already has descretion to exactly do that. If they send Wikipedians to RfA again, then this is their decision. -- Ligulem 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The past few cases suggest that if re-adminship is left to RfA in these cases, it is a long time coming. If ArbCom wants removal of adminship to be a cooling-off period or temporary in a given case, it should itself re-examine the user after a given time. Hopefully this will be a learning experience and allow similar events in the future to be handled more smoothly. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There are different flavors of "desysopping". There's "temporary with a set time limit", "temporary with an indefinite time limit (new RFA required)" and "permanent (no new RFA allowed)". ArbCom chose not to set a time limit for Carnildo and therefore required a new RFA. The B'crats decided 61% was enough "consensus" for this case. That is their right unless someone wants to try and change policy.

FWIW, I think the B'crats decided to interpret the ArbCom's meaning of "temporary" to mean six months and two RFA's. They could have decided it to mean "until an RFA is passed with 70%+ consensus" and might do so again in the future if we decide that this case was exceptional and not a "cast in concrete" precedent for all future RFAs.

Carnildo could probably have passed an RFA with 70%+ support in another 3-6 months. In fact, he probably would have passed this RFA with 70%+ if he had been a bit more forthcoming with an apology as I and a number of "oppose" votes indicated. Apparently, the b-crats didn't think the apology was that important and went with the 61% who voted to support. By promoting Carnildo despite the lack of 70%+ support, the b-crats took away our leverage to extract that apology from Carnildo. In essence, they are endorsing his position "it was a mistake, the damage wasn't that great, I don't need to apologize, get over it". I'm sorry that they did that but we will all survive. Carnildo will be a good admin. Now, take a pill, chill and get on with editing Wikipedia.

-- Richard 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm hoping ArbCom won't make a similar mistake again. It's pretty clear that RfA isn't useful for determining the endpoints of a temporary desysopping. So hopefully ArbCom won't use the process again. If they intend a user to get adminship back after a cooling-off period, they should realize that RfA isn't up to the task and take the job themselves. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? So why was the community bothered with a scarring charade of an RFA at all?

Agree with Marskell. The ArbCom are prepared to reinstate Carnildo on a probationary basis on their own authority, without reference to the community? OK, fine, they have the authority to do that, and they were the ones who desysopped him. But to first bother the community with a charade of an RFA is disgraceful. An unusually bothersome RFA it turned out to be, too, which has left scars of its own. Arbs and bureaucrats, have you considered that it would have looked a little better if the RFA had today been declared to have failed, and you had then gone on to reinstate Carnildo in say a month or so, without any reference to the community? This was done in the worst possible way. I feel like turning in my bit. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

My sense is the 'crats decided 63% was borderline, so they looked to the ArbCom ruling for guidance. For me, I think 63% was a bit low to be borderline, but our concern now should be about what's best for Wikipedia, not about mending hurt feelings or punishing people. Is there any good way to de-bit Carnildo? Perhaps there should be, but I'm not aware of one. Would Wikipedia be better off if Bishonen was bitless? I don't think so. The only thing that does worry me, is does this set any really bad precedents? I don't think so, but I'd like to be more certain of that. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully by this time next year ArbCom will have developed its admin sanctions a bit. Do you remember the nightmare when Stevertigo (IIRC) was desyssopped and made to go through an RfA immediately? At least things have moved on a bit since then - I am sure that they will do in future. The Land 09:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What everybody seems to be forgetting is that the RfA had a simple majority. Therefore, you were pleasing more people by promoting than you were pissing off. This 75-80pc rubbish is unnecessary, and only a guideline. — Werdna talk criticism 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Even if you think that Carnildo will make a good admin, which I do, that doesn't mean the end justifies the means. I can imagine that even Canildo might be wondering if becoming an admin was worth the stress it's caused. But we are where we are. It's a pity it wasn't a clearer result, but it wasn't. Either way, Taxman has said this is probationary and ArbCom will review in 2 months, so people will have a chance to make a submission then. Peace be with you. Ben Aveling 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - perhaps someone could make it a bit clearer for me whether this is a decision by the ArbCom, or by a subset of our bureaucrats. I'd be interested to see the views of the other members of the ArbCom and of our other bureaucrats.

Is this decision specific to this case, or will it be applied more generally? Will "probationary" adminship be granted to other failed RFAs in the 60-70% band going forward? Will previous failed RFAs be reviewed so "probationary" adminship can be granted to previous candidates who failed on such technical grounds being unable to demonstrate a community consensus? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck: Did ALoan just blank his userpage and talk? Tell me I'm mixing up red and blue rather than seeing a great editor leave for the third time in 24 hrs. Marskell 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, this has been a dark, dark day. We've lost three admins in a day. It's Black Tuesday for Wikipedia. Yank sox 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a read of meatball:GoodBye. It's nothing more than theatrics. If he wants to leave in bloody protest, he's more than welcome to. He'll be back within a month. — Werdna talk criticism 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Touché, I forgot about that. Yank sox 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes in standards aren't easy. A few clapping doors are inevitable ;-). Although I wonder if they all manage to keep their doors closed forever (turn on your sock detector! ;-). -- Ligulem 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mightily for your wisdom, Werdna. Who'd want to come back with glibness of this sort abounding? As for theatrics, he wasn't acting with eight successful FACs. To lose some like ALoan over bullshit here makes for a dark day indeed. Marskell 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to allow Wikipedia to be bullied into doing something because somebody gets pissed off about something ridiculous like this. Did you read the link I gave you? — Werdna talk criticism 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between allowing yourself to be bullied and showing due sensitivity to people who've contributed to this place. Happening to intersect with three people who have left today is making me morose—responding with "Good, screw off" is no better than "We'll do whatever you want, if you stay." As for the meatball essay, pass the tomato sauce. Marskell 12:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

People in this community constantly overreact. I live in Pittsburgh, where it can be dark and cloudy for weeks at a stretch. I can live with it, and so can we. Everyone needs to get over this- now- and keep doing what we're here for, which is to write an encyclopedia. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're so tied up in your own importance that you'll leave over someone else getting administrative rights over your objection, we really don't want you here. Kelly Martin ( talk) 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we all make little goodbyes from time to time. A while ago you said "I no longer want anything to do with the community" [2] and yet, here you are. I tried to leave too at one point - it's tougher than it looks :) Haukur 12:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, that wasn't a goodbye; Kelly sometimes uses "community" in a more specific sense than might be immediately apparent. Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, but even under Kelly's limited definition it is the community that is discussing things on this talk page. In any case my point is that we've all had stressful times where we want to leave. We should speak gently of people in that situation, hope that they come back and make it as easy for them as possible to come back. We should not shout 'good riddance' and link to a hackneyed essay saying that their goodbye is a "passive agressive ... vehicle for violence". Haukur 12:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that I took an actual break at that point. And in that case I was pissed at "the community" because they were attacking me almost continuously. That wasn't a case of my not getting my way or feeling that my "rights" had been trampled by some person "disregarding process"; it was a case of me being subjected to huge heaping volumes of uncivil monkeyshit from "the community". Let's keep perspective here. Kelly Martin ( talk) 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You were upset because many people didn't want you as head clerk and some were quite vehement about it. That's understandable. You made some posts where you lambasted the community and said you were leaving it. That's also understandable. Then you took a break from the community for a while. Understandable, probably a good idea. Then you came back. That's great! All I'm saying is that it's okay to have some empathy for people who exercize their right to leave, even if they post a goodbye message and even if they end up only taking a break. Attacking ALoan as a "drama queen" [3] which we're better off without was just completely uncalled for. Now he's clarified that it isn't even this issue which caused him to leave. As far as I can see no-one has left over this issue - but if they do then they're perfectly entitled to and we should not villify them. Haukur 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Smack bang on the nail's head. We can't allow self-important people like this to bully their way into having other people's admin privileges taken away. — Werdna talk criticism 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but then we allow people who spitefully block three good-faith editors indefinitely to get their admin tools back. Also adminship is not a privilegy, and I'm going to vote oppose on your future RfA just for that.  Grue  15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, please don't imply that people are upset because their personal objections were ignored. People are upset because of a perception that the actions of an authoritarian few violate the normal standards and practices of the community. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, it is not helpful to miscast the complaints of others or suggest that their opinions are not welcome here. Dragons flight 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whistle whistle!! Guys were getting off track, off topic and a little personal here some of the above comments aren't really needed... --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

People, people, it was not 60 some percent support. We didn't just look at it and say yeah, it's 60%, but we want to promote anyway. There were a huge number of supports and a lot of sockpuppetting on the oppose side. So we read what the community really had to say, not just what came up on paper. When we say extenuating circumstances we meant it. Give us some credit that we didn't throw consensus out the window, we just didn't read it based on a narrow reading of the percentage. - Taxman ^Talk 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say I'm truly shocked at this suggestion - where's your evidence for the sockpuppetry? -- Mcginnly | Natter 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly can I say that I personally accept the decision of the crats (especially Danny) to reinstate Carnildo, espeically if it is on a probationary basis. However I would question the decision. Not with respect to Carnildo's re-adminship that decision is based on these crats basing personal trust into Carnildo - based on his recent record. Rather I would question the lack of consultation. I know such a decision ultimately rests with the Beurocrats but they must have known this would be a controversial promotion. Rather than just promoting I wonder whether closing the vote on time, then announcing their plans to reinstate on the trial period to the community for the to respond would have been better. Sure there would have been many similar comments those above but I wonder how many others would have supported the idea of a promotion on a trial basis. This kind of action could undermine the Beaurocrats respected and responsible position in our community - a position that really requires openness and discussion rather than decisions inside a 'closed room'

As I have said I fully support your choice to re-promote Carnildo and I genuinely hope and believe he has changed (and learnt his lesson) but I do feel slightly let down by the lack of respect for the rest of our community. Please talk to us...--Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(last note was an edit conflict and I missed Taxmans latest reply) I find it positive that you chose to look at the discussion rather than the percentages. But then I would hope that happens anyway ;-) --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just how much additional consultation do you require? The bureaucrats had a whole page full of discussion on the merits of the candidate. Do you feel that somehow you lacked a sufficient opportunity to make your opinion known? Kelly Martin ( talk) 12:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Err yes but when was the possibility of promotion under review for 2 months suggested? Did I miss that somewhere? It would at least have been nice to hear about it as an option! Thats all Im saying --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll give you some credit, as it was a good judgement. Also, this may have already been addressed, but can it not be argued that the 60% result showed there was no consensus to remove adminship from said editor? I see it as essentially a request-for-deadminship, as the adminship was not removed by consensus in the first place. Also, it has to be said, that if every admin had an RFA right now, many would fail, because being an admin does not make you any friends, and yet the system still manages to work somehow. Martin 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this is going to sound uncivil and I hope you will not take too much offense by it as I am not meaning to attack you personally but a really dangerous idea that you probably didn't mean to express. The above is one of the best examples of doubletalk that I've seen. You cannot cast this RFA as a "request for deadminship". Carnildo had already been deadminned by ArbCom. Are you now saying that ArbCom decisions can be overturned by consensus? Or that ArbCom decisions are subject to review such that their decisions can be overturned by the lack of a consensus to support their decision? If so, this is a new and potentially disruptive proposal.

As I understand it, the purpose of ArbCom is to put an end to a dispute finally with the only recourse left to parties being an appeal directly to Jimbo. If Jimbo has any desire to keep his sanity, he will choose to leave most decisions of ArbCom intact so as to minimize such appeals. -- Richard 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "the system still manages to work somehow". No it doesn't. Many admins would fail? Only those would fail whose actions are rejected by community. As long as Wikipedia is democracy, all admins should be reelected. If it is an oligarchy (as Tony and Kelly like to see it), then we should abolish talk pages and shut up. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's convenient, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Martin 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"We believe that special consideration should be given to anyone that Danny likes". "The rest of you can just stuff your heads down a hole." - Splash - tk 13:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I have never had any interaction that I remember with Carnildo, and considering that I was asked to give an opinion on his RfA less than two hours before it was over, not even knowing that there was such an RfA before that, I am at a loss as to what your basis is. Or is it just that you prefer personal attacks when things don't go your way. Or should I assume that your comment was made in "good faith"? Danny 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. "We believe that special consideration should be given to any RfA that Danny likes. The rest of you can just stuff your heads down a hole". Better? Different? - Splash - tk 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it would be wise of the bureaucrats to work hard to remove heat from this discussion and add light. Some of the above is definitely fuel for the heat. Obviously this is a contentious decision. We won't progress things in a good way by throwing knives at each other. -- Durin 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone please remember to remain calm. I know some folks think RFC is a sham, but one on this issue might actually be useful (I'd love to see Bishonen's statement written as an outside view.) This isn't the end of the world, but I think many editors want clarification on this issue, and rightfully so. I think this was handled in the worst possible way and I want to know who actually thought this was a good idea and who didn't. Friday (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I acted without thinking through how the sudden red links would alarm some people. I have added a comment so they are blue. This, incidentally, was not the trigger, although it was one of the straws in the wind. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some other points of discussion on this

---

I'd like to raise several points which I don't think have been addressed above:

• Was Carnildo offered to reject decision?: I'm curious as to whether any bureaucrat contacted Carnildo prior to making this decision public. From a reading of his talk page, it does not appear so. It had to be obvious that this decision was going to be controversial, and would most definitely place Carnildo in a most searing public light. Such a decision is virtually a sentence for Carnildo, rather than something to feel good about. Even if he clears ArbCom's review of him in two months, he will always be viewed as something of a pariah among a significant set of users. By promoting him under such a harshly controversial decision, this negative view has and will be sharply focused. He will never be able to fully leave this limelight. He should have been given an opportunity to reject the decision before it was implemented. It does not appear he was given such.

• Full consideration of outcome:I'm concerned that the bureaucrats may not have made a careful consideration of the consequences of this decision. While I agree 100% that it was within their purview to act as they did, the impact of the decision could not have been seen as anything other than extremely controversial. Apparently we've had a number of admins leave the project over this decision. This is both unfortunate and highly predictable. It isn't bullying. It's simply people who are disgusted by what is perceived as abuse of a well established process. We should respect all users who contribute here in good faith. These users who have left over this certainly fall well within that group. Their departure is a significant loss to the project. In the past year, we've had two bureaucrats step down over less constroversial decisions. Certainly the bureaucrats had to have some inkling that this decision would cause a very significant amount of fallout, even if not among themselves. I'm curious if the bureaucrats considered this, and weighed it against the value of promoting Carnildo.

• Carnildo should not be a special case: Carnildo can indeed be desysopped if things turn out other than the bureaucrats expect. But, if that is a significant basis of the decision then RfA should be changed to permit this sort of access to admin functions for all would-be administrators, and not just a lone person who is well known in the community. Carnildo should not be a special case.

• RfA descending into anarchy?: The bureucrats have certainly stated the case that they acted within the bounds expected of them. I fully support that they in fact did do so. However, as can be seen from a number of comments above, the community's expectations of them were radically different than what transpired. Over the last few months, there's been a gradual increase in the division of people within the RfA community. There's a significant number of people who feel RfA is broken, and I would venture to guess that virtually every one of them feel that this decision by the bureaucrats was 100% spot on. On the other side, there's a significant number of people who feel the process works, and works better than any alternative that has been proposed (and there's been a huge number of proposals). By making this decision, the bureaucrats have starkly drawn a line between these two groups. There's distrust from both sides, insults from both sides, and heated debate from both sides. I fear now that even if the system we have at RfA is as perfect as we can get, it will not matter; there is now such a strong divide between these two groups that RfA as it is now may crumble. What I think will evolve in its place is a process more in line with how one group feels than with both. Regardless of how good that one group feels about it, this will be a very negative outcome. If the bureaucrats hope to avoid this, they need to go to signficant effort to reinstill trust in the consensus based nature of RfA, which has been seriously undermined by this decision. It isn't enough to simply say "we acted within the bounds". You have to rise above that, and lead where others can follow.

-- Durin 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The only sense in which they acted "within the bounds" is in the sense that noone knew the bounds might exist that this decision could be outside of. The bureaucrats were never scrutinised for the ability to make up arbitrary rules as they went along, to specify probationary adminships, to haul people before arbcom on their own, minority-collective authority. Noone expected the bureaucrats to dramatically alter the approach at the last moment without telling anyone, either support or oppose, that their !votes and comments would have a radically different meaning (i.e. basically none at all) under the scheme they were scheming. What purpose does de-sysopping and RfA serve if three bureaucrats have some beer and say "nah, this looks fun, let's do it"? - Splash - tk 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I used to think that bcrats were here to judge consensus on RfAs. If the ycan seea consensus here I am amazed. They are clearly basing their decision on something else. The Land 15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add one more:

• What is the role of Bureaucrats?: No, really. From one perspective Bureaucrats exist to judge consensus and this is their only function in RFA. Though some of the statements above discuss consensus and votes, many talk about a broader picture that might be called "doing the right thing". Certainly Taxman et al.'s initial statement is phrased primarily in terms of what the result ought to be rather than judging what the result was. Likewise, the invention of probationary sysophood is a rather novel compromise by which the Bureaucrats might be said to be imposing their will on the community rather than simply interpreting community will. It strikes me that this action declares with it an potential shift in the role of Bureaucrats from promoting "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" ( WP:BUR) to some standard based on doing what the Bureaucrats believe is right, even when that conflicts with traditional community views on promotion. Such a shift will undoubtedly please some and anger others.

-- Dragons flight 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We are clearly well beyond the territory of conventional arbitration and beaureaucracy policy here. Bcrats and ArbCom are of course entitled to Ignore All Rules and I am sure the people involved wer aware, at least in the back of their minds, that is what they were doing. I don't have too much of a problem with RfA for new admins. I think the community as a whole needs to decide what sanctions for misbehaving admins should be available and how they are enforced: I don't think it is possible for any former admin, voluntarily or involuntarily deadminned, to go through a 'normal' RfA because enough people are wound up that the decision will end up in a result of No Consensus (as this effectively did), and probably with a lot of hurt feelings all round.

• Perhaps ArbCom itself needs to consider reapplications for adminship from people it has formerly sacked?
• Perhaps BCrats shoud consider them but in a process based on RFC rather than RFA?
• Perhaps no-one should be deadmineed permanently but always allowed to reapply to ArbCom every two months?

Regards, The Land 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of sockpuppeting do people not understand? I am dumfounded that no one is simply saying, hmm, maybe they knew what they were doing. On top of that we have the extraordinary circumstances of the arbcom having taken away his adminship and none of them opposing him getting it back. If people want pure numbers to make them happy, without questionable votes on both sides the numbers were within range it didn't take much special consideration to send this one over. But apparently people would rather have fun sniping at those making decisions rather than trying to help with anything. By that I'm not referring to constructive comments, but the insinuation without evidence that this was because we were chummy with Carnildo, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If sockpuppeting was the real issue here, you could have saved lots of grief by making this clear in the explanation given. Friday (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Was it really only sockpuppeting? I've heard many difference possibilities; none was officially given. How many opposes were suspected socks? Three, four, maybe five. Take away another ten or so for opposing based on the bot? Were "bot's stupid" and "no admin needed to run bot" discounted? There are many possible interpretations as no official reasoning was given, except "we believe ArbCom only meant desysopping as temporary". – Ch acor 16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It would need to have been massive sockpuppeting (which, looking down the list of names, doesn't seem obvious, at least to me) to significantly change the number here. I'm guessing, given the original bcrat remarks here, that certain reasons for opposing the nomination were given less consideration than others; perhaps the bureaucrats might be able to make some general comments about how they regarded the various point made? Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if Carnildo had a supermajority of support, given the strength of arguments given against him, I'd be surprised if you could see a consensus. However, I'm no bcrat (can't even spell it properly). The Land 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• (to Taxman) I don't think pure numbers are at issue. Further, saying in essence "We know what we are doing, trust us" is tantamount to refusing any constructive criticism of decisions made by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats were put into their role to evaluate consensus on RfA. That in no way means you are above any negative feedback. The decision had to have been seen as controversial before it was implemented. There should be no...no...surprise that people are questioning the decision. Rather, there should be considerable effort to explain this decision, in detail, to help calm down the situation as opposed to criticizing people for their positions. The onus is on the bureaucrats to explain their decision in a rational, thoughtful way. The onus is not on the users to lockstep with the bureaucrats and not question their decision. -- Durin 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Taxman: kindly go and reread your first few posts in this thread. See how you only started talking about sockpuppetry later, after people (oh so surprisingly) expressed some unhappiness? The initial announcement said things like "we believe that special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case and that we should act in the spirit of forgiveness and reconcilliation which is integral to the success of our community", not "there was massive sockpuppetry in the oppose column". Why was that? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• BoG got it right. By bringing out the sockpuppet allegations now, the Bcrats involved are discrediting themselves. You're making it sound more like you're saying "Well, we decided the outcome amongst ourselves, for reasons only we're allowed to know. And, we'll make up a series of increasingly-implausible sounding excuses for why we decided the way we did." And you wonder why people are raising eyebrows at this? Damn. Friday (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fun theory, but sockpuppeting was brought up well before the closing and if you look into it you'll see why there was good reason to believe more was coming. - Taxman ^Talk 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Taxman, that's hugely implausible. Your original appeal to forgiveness and blah was presumably a sham then, because really it was sockpuppets all along? Come on, you can't have this both ways: either your were simply making it up as you went along (your original assertion) or you weren't and the reason was sockpuppetry among the opposers (you'll be able to write them down here, in that case). If the latter is now the case, why the attempt at the former? (Please omit the lecture on good faith. I'm fresh out.) - Splash - tk 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't say it was only sockpuppets either, I was responding to people that acted like we decided to promote one at 60% at a whim with nothing else involved. - Taxman ^Talk 18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mmm, can we please get a slightly more detailed explanation of how the bureaucrats arrived at their decision, then? Given the sheer level of weirdness here, I think having the reasoning explained would significantly help defuse the situation. (As an aside, aren't sockpuppets being abused to manipulate an RFA supposed to be blocked?) Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Even if that was what people were complaining about (and it obviously isn't) you'd need the most extraordinary quantity of socks on the oppose side that I refuse to believe you have enough of them to get you anywhere near the region at which you get to start making it up. And that apart from the fact that the support side isn't clean either. It's not much of an excuse. - Splash - tk 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I, and undoubtedly other editors, don't vote in an RfA if it is well outside the usual threshhold and I have no particular inclination to contradict the way it is headed—after all, I am not going to investigate every single candidate to little effect. If there had been some information that an otherwise failing ~60% would in this case result in a sysopping, I would have looked into an obviously controversial candidate further, where otherwise I would not have any particular reason to do the extensive examination that would be necessary to write a comment that could possibly convince a 15% increase in support. If the level of support needed to pass is going to be changed for a certain RfA, that needs to be advertised beforehand. If the lower support that could have resulted had it been clear that 60% was passing, would also have been disregarded, then there is no reason to have an RfA in the first place.

Also, I looked through all of the opposing users' contributions, and didn't find any sockpuppetry; there are a couple of users who seem to contribute disproportionately in AfDs and RfAs, there are a couple with less than 500 edits, but all but a couple of opposers have had an account for over a month and more than half were well-established editors and admins that I have directly encountered. Perhaps there are forged signatures, but I have looked at the page history and at least most are not. There doesn't seem to be any unusual sockpuppetry in this RfA that would warrant a deviation, in that respect, from the usual RfA practice. — Centrx→ talk • 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, User:Mostly Rainy is an EddieSegoura puppet... oh, wait, he voted support. Centrx, I think you are entirely correct about the tendencies of voters not to take the time if an RfA is clearly failing; I did not actually vote here either (to try to avoid stressing myself out, truth be told) but certainly wish I had in retrospect. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there in reality anything that can be done about this situation? - Or do we like sheep, just go baaah and then go back to writing, while our masters further police us. Giano | talk 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Centrx is right when he writes: "If the level of support needed to pass is going to be changed for a certain RfA, that needs to be advertised beforehand". I considered opposing but did not envy the investigation into his recent editing to determine if an oppose or support was valid. As it appeared he would not pass i decided not to chime in. I should have known better afterthe Sean Black RfA. It would seem that the precedent that is being set here is that a simple majority could be enough for resysopping. Is this the case?

I would also appreciate those who made the decision to calrify the decision, and to identify the so called sock puppets. David D. (Talk) 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the promotion would have been more palatable if:

• The lower threshold was announced before or during the RfA. As was pointed out above, users tend not to oppose when an RfA is clearly failing. Hovering around 60% support, some users likely viewed an oppose vote as "piling on".

• Immediately following the closure, detailed reasoning for the promotion was provided. This should have included the names of all people involved in the decision as well as strong arguments for ignoring the general promotion guidelines. If sockpuppets and weak reasons for opposing (OrphanBot, for example) were discounted, then mention it. By explaining the reasoning after the fact, it seems that it's being made up as objections are raised.

• Carnildo had acknowledged that his actions (the ones that led to his desysoping) were wrong and should never be repeated. Instead he barely addressed the concerns of opposers and seemed to shrug off his actions as not being a big deal.

Transparency is getting to be a serious problem on Wikipedia. Decisions are being made with little or no explanation. It's important to not only make the "right decision", but to also explain why it's the right decision. SuperMachine 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you could announce a different threshold, because I don't think that it was known before the bureaucrats' evaluation. Also, I don't think it makes much of a difference, but in my case with a weak oppose vote, a probationary period is sufficient to turn that into a weak support. — Ram-Man ^{( comment) ( talk)} 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Were the right people making the final decision?

Why is it that Danny is the 112th support on an RFA he was later consulted on to make the final decision? -- nae' blis 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny, why did you just use the revert button to remove Nae'blis' question? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That I had to revert a rollback by Danny of this is really, really disappointing. It's a perfectly valid question - we'd confront any other bureaucrat who voiced an opinion. – Ch acor 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is most odd indeed. — Ram-Man ^{( comment) ( talk)} 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Danny for clarification, see User_talk:Danny#Was_this_intentional.3F. Remember, rollback is a one-click process. Let's just assume a simple mistake until told otherwise, eh? Friday (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't an accident, that's just messed up. There are a lot of irregularities going on here. :( Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is too strange to not be a 1-click accident. As for the voting irregularity, it's a bit strange too (being the very last vote!), and I'd certainly like to hear a response. — Ram-Man ^{( comment) ( talk)} 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is, of course, the third time that Danny has voted in support of an RfA and then been involved in the promotion (in fact he actually promoted the other two). - Splash - tk 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In general I trust a bureaucrat to not give their own vote any weight if they are involved in a decision. In this case, 1 vote probably didn't mean much. But it was a contentious vote and he obviously had to know that it would cause *some* amount of controversy. It's bad form, and it looks like a final support vote was just thrown in at the end to bias or legitimize the result. I'm not saying that was the intention, only how it looks. Of course the last vote could have been added well before he knew he would be helping taxman with the result, I don't know. — Ram-Man ^{( comment) ( talk)} 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This would have looked much better if that hadn't happened. In the future it would be strongly appreciated if crats and Danny did not vote especially if they were considering some more or less out of process implementation anyways. JoshuaZ 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"We'd confront any other bureaucrat who voiced an opinion" -- this is fast becoming a witch hunt. I have closed many RFAs in which I voted, often with the opposite outcome of that for which I voted. This is true of almost all the bureaucrats, whose having been chosen by the community to do this job reflects their ability to participate in the process and decide its outcome impartially. — Dan | talk 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, let me rephrase that to any bureaucrat who voiced an opinion in the direction of the final result. There have been cases in the recent past where crats have gotten too involved in RFAs. – Ch acor 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This was hardly a typical RfA and your examples do not seem that relevant to this case. Bureaucrats should be astute enough to realise when their actions could be seen as a conflict of interest, whether that is the case or not. One can easily cite AGF but that is a weak argument when a little foresight could have predicted this mess. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: [4] The rollback was an accidental click. Thankfully. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• At least, a damn good explanation ;-). <paranoia mode off> -- Ligulem 08:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Lol! Three simultaneous phone calls. Someone should do a cartoon... Carcharoth 09:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah. I like the part "I did not see what I was clicking" most ;-) (but it was a damn good click ;-). I wish I would be able to draw this cartoon, really. I would write that sentence in the cartoon. (Now, I'm finally going to edit the encyclopedia, promised. Cheers.) -- Ligulem 09:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxman's RfB promise

'4'. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?

A'. Of course. Transparency is very important for a process like this that affects the community, so keeping conversation among bureaucrats, but open to review is an important part of that.

Didn't last long, unfortunately. - Splash - tk 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Touche. I can take my licks. In light of that statement I have made a mistake, no buts about that point. I just knew there were problems with some of the votes in Carnildo's RfA and I instinctively sought out trusted people. Even though I didn't intentionally break that pledge, that doesn't change the fact that I did different from what I said I would. However, I would like to know how you think your present politicking is helping move the project forward. So you didn't like the decision, but that doesn't also mean that your present efforts are helping either. - Taxman ^Talk 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But I'm never really of the mind that, when seeing something obviously wrong, one should simple sew up ones mouth for fear of upsetting someone. And before we broaden this out, I trust you aren't saying that everyone should simply fall in line because, hey, we're not changing anything no matter what you say. - Splash - tk 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That didn't answer what I asked. I gave you a straight answer and I think it would be only fair for you to give one. And yes, that would be correct that's not what I'm saying. It's more the manner in which you are approaching your efforts that is the problem and I'd like to know how you think it is valuable for the project to approach it the way you are. - Taxman ^Talk 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had been reasonably direct. Anyway. Overlooking the "project" implications, because tonight is not a night I feel like writing articles, when you go and make wacky decisions you can expect to be held quite thoroughly to account for them. When the reason changes from "love and forgiveness" to "it's the sockpuppets, duh" (with the obligatory detour through "it's not a vote") then the bullet dodging needs to straightened out. How does this help the "project"? By, hopefully, making sure that the bureaucracy considers itself rather more thoroughly and carefully in future, that it knows it will be held firmly to account and thus that the admins they promote are those who will help the project. If they go promoting wacky RfAs, we'll get admins that harm the project (like Carnildo did). This particular subsection is hard on you, certainly, but if in future you stick to that promise then that too will have helped the project by making sure that thunderstorms aren't whipped out of the bad on a moment's notice. - Splash - tk 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don' mind being taken to task for a clear mistake. What I do mind is the personal attacks and the outright abrasive method with which you have conducted yourself. - Taxman ^Talk 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The real issue here is not politeness but ACCOUNTABILITY, both yours and Carnildo's. Now that you admit it was a "clear mistake", would you be willing to resign for it?-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that question, in light of Taxman's pledge when he ran for bcat. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The clear mistake I was referring to was forgetting about the pledge from my RfB and that should have been clear from this section. The mistake was not in promoting Carnildo. As we said before we believed there were enough extenuating circumstances to make promoting Carnildo the right thing to do. That decision was not solely my own. I don't say that to deflect criticism, because I stand by the decision, but so that people remember three bureaucrats discussed that RfA and came to the same conclusion (incidentally at least one more did after too). It was not something I just decided on a whim to do. So no, I don't think the community or the most important thing, the encyclopedia, would be better served by resigning. I did what I did in the best interests of the project and I feel good about that. - Taxman ^Talk 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again you offer nothing but spin. No apologies, no admission of wrong-doing. The self-same arrogance of power which caused so many woes for poor Carnildo. At the very least, Taxman, you broke your promise...Splash has done an outstanding job catching and calling you on it. If your word is worth anything at all, if you have any sense of decency or honor left, you would resign.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxman has already admitted the mistake and apologized for it, numerous times. What else is there to say? Unless the only "apology" that is acceptable is a resignation, there has already been one. Taxman is a great bureaucrat. He shouldn't resign. If you have an issue with him, take it up in an official channel (such as ArbCom, etc.), not on this page. Obviously the answer to the question is "No", he won't resign. There is no need to ask it again. I voted against Carnildo, but it is important to separate my opinion of the decision with that of this totally separate admitted mistake. The two issues must be judged independently to be fair and unbiased. -- RM 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion Essay

(de-indented) Resignation would be an honorable and gracious gesture suitable for Japanese CEOs who make mistakes. However, it seems like an excessive atonement to exact for Taxman's transgression. However, I think that Taxman has not yet acknowledged the gravity of the transgression. Perhaps it is because he does not recognize it as being all that grave.

I would like to point out that, not only was there a lack of transparency DURING the decision to promote Carnildo, there was a lack of transparency AFTER the announcement of the decision and that lack of transparency continues to the present.

In announcing the decision, Taxman did not explain adequately how the decision was reached nor the rationale for it. He never acknowledged the exceptional nature of Carnildo's RFA and the exceptional resolution of b'crats deciding to promote Carnildo in the absence of a consensus to do so.

As a result of this failure to lead by building a post-hoc consensus to support the decision, there has been a lot of heat and the absence of light in the discussion that ensued. We have just seen Tony Sidaway and some others who think as he does change the RFA front matter to assert that "RFAs are not a vote" and that the b'crats have the right to decide an RFA just about any old way they want to without giving much consideration to the numerical outcome of the RFA non-vote.

This is a major change in how people think about the RFA process. Maybe it's always been that way and people have just been led to believe that their vote counted for something. Silence from the b'crats at this point would endorse Tony Sidaway's interpretation of how the RFA process really works.

Instead of calling for Taxman's resignation, I call on all the b'crats to step forward (perhaps through a spokesperson) and define what they believe to be the RFA process.

I thought their primary job was to determine the consensus for the RFA process. Perhaps I was wrong in believing that when I read it. If so, please disabuse me of my misconception.

In response to the uproar ensuing after the decision to promote Carnildo, the b'crats said almost nothing. Perhaps the philosophy was "Say nothing and the uproar will die down." However, I maintain that it would have been far more useful for Taxman and other b'crats involved in the decision to take a proactive, leadership role in forming a consensus to support the decision.

Instead, they have left this job to editors such as Tony Sidaway whose dismissive attitude has been more divisive and antagonistic than healing. As a result, the dissension and unrest have gone on longer than it needs to have.

I have already argued elsewhere on this page that the b'crats should clearly state that Carnildo's promotion was a rare exception and that, in the vast majority of cases, they will honor the consensus of the RFA vote. I still hope that they will do this.

But, if they will not, they should clearly state what they believe are the long-term implications of the Carnildo promotion. Are they asserting, as Tony seems to, that the numerical outcome of RFA votes are, in fact, minor inputs into the promotion decision? (Tony rejected language that would have asserted that the numerical outcome of an RFA vote was a key consideration in making the decision to promote.)

Hopefully, this little essay will motivate the b'crats to step forward and speak authoritatively about the RFA process. Now is the time for all good b'crats to come to the aid of their 'pedia.

-- Richard 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I support this assertion fully. I agree with Richard here that calling for Taxman's resignation is a little harsh so long as a better solution can be found. The solution specified above is reasonable and is asking for bureaucrats to be forthcoming and open in the spirit of what this community is about. I see no negatives in this, but I see negatives in silence and hidden discussion. The latter is not conducive for a happily working encyclopedia. With all that said, in my recent RfB, I said that I would give any bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt in any decision unless such a decision was so egregious that it required a potential resignation or removal. I'm not convinced that this is the case, but I'd certainly entertain the thought if the bureaucrats are unwilling to address these concerns. Honestly, it only makes total sense to spell out the terms used in making these decisions. I've had to scour countless archives to try to piece together the whole process so that I could understand it for my RfB. It isn't easy, and it isn't as clear as it should be. Perhaps RfA/RfB isn't broken, it just needs to be a clearly published process. (One note: Taxman is a great bureaucrat who does a lot of useful work. But being a bureaucrat has great responsibility attached) -- RM 03:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked for more input from the other bureaucrats and the ArbCom 4 days ago. We have 15 active bureaucrats (not to mention 8 inactive ones). I would interested in hearing, for example, what User:Angela, User:Essjay, User:Linuxbeak, User:Nichalp, User:Pakaran, User:Raul654 think. -- ALoan (Talk) 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent question Aloan! It would also be interesting to see what The big kahuna himself has to say on the subject.

Richard, even if the mistake itself does not provide enough reason to call for Taxman's resignation, then certainly the poor way in which he has handled its aftermath does. The only places where admins and crats are held accountable to the community are Rfa and the Arbcomm. Both have clearly failed in this case. Barring some sort of divine intervention, we have no other means to address their wrongs other than attempts to appeal to any sense of honor or decency they might have left. Though such attempts are usually futile, there's no harm in trying. If only more people acted like those steotypical Japanese CEOs you mention...with honor, graciousness and humility and take responsibility for their own actions, this world, including this Wiki world, would be a better place.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny from the guy that tried to have two "votes" in the RfA, and is now clearly just angry because you didn't get your way. - Taxman ^Talk 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not angry because I didn't get my way, I'm angry because of the way you and your two colleagues got yours. If you had just taken a few moments to strike or move my proxy vote it would have been neither harm nor foul. You would have been well within your rights to do so and neither Karmafist nor I wouldn't have minded. I openly passed along my friend's opinion. You privately decided that your 3 votes counted more than 70. So who stinketh most here? Instead of trying to discredit the messenger because you dislike the message, why don't you do the right thing, for a change, and RESIGN?-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a couple of points to make here. Firstly, Bureaucrats are not obliged to make any specific decision in a Request for Adminship. We don't promote them to become vote-counters, we promote them to become intelligent judges of who can gain the sysop bit. By convention, they will follow the consensus of the community (which, again, is, by convention, between 75 and 80 percent), however there is no sacred law to state that this is correct. We cannot have the double-standard of requiring Bureaucrats to have significant experience in Requests for adminship, and then use them exclusively as vote-counters. Secondly, while Taxman did the actual promotion, discussion on the actual promotion, from my contact with Taxman earlier that day, had occurred between a number of users, including Danny Wool and Rdsmith4 (not sure which, if any, other bureaucrats were involved). If you're going to ask for Taxman's resignation, go ahead and ask Danny Wool to resign, I'm sure him and Jimbo will be more than willing to oblige. — Werdna talk criticism 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We had already explained that there were extenuating circumstances in this one. We then went on to explain more about those extenuating circumstances. Just because those got lost in the noise and weren't 100 page essays doesn't mean we didn't explain that this was an exceptional case, in fact we stated there were extenuating circumstances. And no there are not likely to be many if any future RfA's with such extraordinary circumstances. But when the unfounded personal attacks and vitriol come out there isn't much that can be said to improve the situation. The people that want to stir and create further controversy will anyway. - Taxman ^Talk 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let Arbcom resysop an Arbcom-desysopped user

I removed this comment because at the time, it was more relevant to the overall concept of Arbcom and how they desysop admins. While I voted to support Carnildo (and I am very sympathetic to how difficult it is dfor desysopped admins to be resysopped), I wasn't happy with how this RfA was closed and in light of what happened here, I don't think Carnildo should have been subjected to an RfA (actually, two RfAs) in the first place. I really don't think RfA is the place to get these users resysopped. If Arbcom decided to desysop an admin, they should decide whether to resysop that user in a certain amount of time. Does this mean we should immediately desysop Carnildo? I would tentatively say no. This whole thing is a lesson... first of all, if Arbcom expects the desysop of an admin to be temporary, they shouldn't subject that former admin to an RfA, and instead just perform their own review of that former admin after a certain period of time. If arbcom expects the desysop of an admin to be permanent, then say so. I think this is probably more of a lesson to Arbcom and how they should hand out admin sanctions. Carnildo's case shows an example of how the sanctions can be wrong, and how the RfA can be a total mess. Hopefully it will help Arbcom to further refine how they hand out sanctions. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 07:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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 [5] 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." [6] . 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)

Discussion there of alternatives to the RFA we know and love. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

...which still has no effort to determine what is wrong with RfA as it stands now. -- Durin 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of things, mostly minor that's true, but that would be nice to change. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of admins growth: Linear. Number of edits growth: Exponential. Projected consequence: Loss of admin control over wikipedia. Suggested solution: Drastic changes need to be made to RFA. Kim Bruning 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ratio of articles to admins has grown only very slowly over the last couple of years. Number of edits per admin is but one measure. There's plenty of evidence to suggest the sky isn't falling. -- Durin 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So who's running wikipedia right now then? :-) Kim Bruning 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Lance Armstrong, pedalling furiously on a bicycle powered generator in the basement of the Wikimedia Cabal Headquarters. -- Durin 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope he won't tire soon. Could we appoint some more people to help him, in some efficient manner? Kim Bruning 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The state the servers have been in recently I'd say he was on strike already.  ;-)

The recent Signpost said that Wikipedia has more admins per article than any other language, I believe. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This could get quite out of hand. I'd ask a bcrat to call WP:SNOW on it. – Ch acor 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious promotion to me. Can I be a bureaucrat now? - Splash - tk 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I almost de-trascluded it off my own bat. However, I'd prefer at least a 010 tally before I called SNOW, not being a crat and all... The Land 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, it's deteriorating into a Massiveego repeat, only instead of trolling it's CIV and NPA. – Ch acor 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, at 7 oppose to no support I have de-transcluded it on two grounds: 1) WP:SNOW; 2) It isn't an RfA because the candidate, even though hte's fileld the form in, show no desire to be an administrator. Obviously anyone can re-transclude it if they want, and a probably a 'crat should actaully close it. The Land 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be the best course of action. Michael 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been reverted by someone, so I'm not doing it again. The Land 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless the candidate himself withdraws, only 'crats can remove requests. Although I believe common sense could be applied to remove it, those participating should also have common sense not to stack to the point of humiliation. -- ReyBrujo 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when? If you look at the page history there are plenty of non-crats removing requests. However, I am happy to be corrected... The Land

My mistake, there is actually an exception for users that are not 'crats to close RFAs. Nevertheless, I find it sad that, after such a long discussion about the moral support, people still need to be stopped from piling on. -- ReyBrujo 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it to make sure a crat sees it, rather than it just sitting there forever. I changed my mind though, it's clearly a fail, I'll just close it myself. -- Rory096 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Michael 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked him to his RfA could be settled without his 'helpful' comments disrupting anything furhter. Ah well perhaps even so 3 hours on ice will help him calm down. The Land 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the diff provided by User:Netsnipe, it appears that User: Adriaan 1's problem is not just about this RFA. I doubt that the block will help much as he seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder about being from Africa. Nonetheless, the block does send a message which may eventually sink in over time. One can always hope... -- Richard 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that 3 hour block will calm him down. He sounds like the type who'll become a vandal just to "teach us all a lesson". --  Netsnipe   ►  19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmpf. Trying to manipulate me with your stupid arguments on my talk page and this is what you say behind my back. But who the hell cares anyway? Certainly not me. -- Scotteh 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, hang on you guys! Please view my comments on his talkpage. This is getting into a serious misunderstanding. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, she already has the mop :-) Kim Bruning 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe! Can we put this into {{ User admin}}? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, if she cleans up my userpage, which is a mess! ++ Lar: t/ c 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind, the current admin logo is derived from the copyrighted Wikipedia logo, and we generaly tell people they can't use that kind of things on userpages, even with permission. Then again not everyone like anime... -- Sherool (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe adding Wikipe-tan to the {{ RfA-nom}} notice is better for creating a less stressing moment :-) -- ReyBrujo 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the CVU people will be too happy if you co opt thier logo for adminship. Geni 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not CVU only, CVU already coopted it from something else, I believe it was created as a generic Wikipedia logo.-- digital_m e^{( Talk• Contribs)} 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It was originally for WP:ANIME, actually; but then became used in a more generic way ( WP:TAN). Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

this version was requested for the CVU logo see this. Geni 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Won't matter unless the CVU decides to use the raw image, which I highly doubt will be the case; all their logos so far have been defined by the background crossed-circle design moreso than by what happens to be in the middle. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to clutter an over-long page with a personal comment, but I'm off to bed and I had to say: this is easily the saddest day I've had on the Wiki. I had one notable success editing an article today, and at the same time watched a worse-than-usual shitstorm here for hours and three editors leave. It's just awful what we come up with sometimes—the "good editors", as much as anyone else. This isn't a yea or nay on the above debate, just an observation. Marskell 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit luckier. I managed to write Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) and Svensky Monastery before I was blocked for three hours for thoughts expressed above and, what is even more amusing, blocked by an editor whom I dared to criticise. Several letters I received today describe the current situation in English Wikipedia as "sinister" and "totalitarian". At least I don't remember a day when some of the most productive members of the community (Giano, ALoan, etc) were told as clearly as today that they are not needed in this project, as long as they don't support the "party line" and its favourites like Carnildo. In such days, our old Russian Wikipedia seems like a paradise... -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the edit summary said that the nom only had 2 edits. I checked, and User:Jarlaxle Artemis was a an impersonator. An apparent accidental (though understandable) typo by the nominator. However, User:JarlaxleArtemis has apparently declined as per: this statement on his talk page - jc37 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Like, everyone else, I've been reading the debate on RfA promotions. Here are some thoughts:

• Taxman considers every debate he closes carefully. He even looked closely into my RfA, which was not a close result, and explained his reasoning, just as he has been in this more complex case
• I found Danny (busy as he is) happy to discuss another matter in detail. He was clear and consistent. Danny has the interests of the project at heart. To suggest otherwise is uninformed
• People will enjoy life here if they relax a little more. This is a wiki, and an expeiment, and things can be be fixed if need be
• For good or bad, RfA can sometimes turn into a witch hunt. This should not unquestioningly be the final arbiter of anything
• Always sticking rigidly to past practice without the possibility of experimenation is a long term recipe for stagnation and sclerosis
• Forgive but don't forget. The novel result of a probationary period shows that people high up in the organisation are not content with revenge and spite as their motivating ideas. As a member of this community, I find this is good to know.

Stephen B Streater 06:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree wholeheartedly with that! The last point I think is important, can we forgive past actions? yes of course, does that mean we should pretend they didnt happen, no? People who disrupt WP shouldnt be pushed away but accepted, shown 'the light' and then kept an eye on over time.. As to the third point I think this is a very enlightened view and one I personally have never considered, I suppose it could be likened to IAR in a way. WP is still an experiment - an ongoing one.

As to the RFA turning ot a witch hunt, unfortunately thats true. But its something that happens across all the Wikis in different places (not just RFA) and probably unavoidable. --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 08:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should people who disrupt Wikipedia be accepted? They should be banned, period. You're living under the misconception that most people can be rehabilitated. Our track record with problem users shows otherwise. These people are often here for ulterior motives that always take first priority over anything the community wants, and since it's just an online website and they are protected by anonymity, none of the usual social forces that keep someone from being a jackass come into play. -- Cyde Weys 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But sometimes, for jack-ass hunters, everyone starts looking like a jack ass. Also, jack-ass hunters attract jack-asses. Period. -- Ligulem 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Doy your really believe that Cyde? Thats the reason so many editors resort to vandalism and outragous behaviour. Everyone has an agenda - you do, I do they do and if we cant find a way to work with each other this whole project is going to start failing. As a relatively new user I know how hard it can be, foryunately I have made no 'mistakes' but I see some poor souls frightenend away by liberal use of warnings, in-speak and general contempt. I have seen good editors driuven to anger, threats and even vandalism by so called experienced editors. People are expected to learn fast and be perfect from the off - I real life that just doesnt work so why does it apply here? The whole community suffers from a lack of respect for each other and itself.

I also find myself cutting through more and more 'paperwork' all the time and am just fed up with editing here - I just seem unable to get anything done without it being reverted discussed, reverted again and the mediated! (ok so thats an overstatment but you see my point).

And then there is all of the accepted policy and processby which we must abide. Well alot of it doesnt work at all. Take polls are evil - completely out of date (and very badly reasoned if you read it!), RFA, Deletion processes. They could all do with reforms - both major and minor but nothing ever gets decided due to the constant bickering and discussion. I am becoming disenamoured with this place - which is a shame because I have so much to give but no-one appreciates it! Now I am working more on Wikinews which is just like 'wikipedia was' - back when it really was experimental.

In truth I think that for WP to progress even further and to even succeed beyond a few more years there needs to be a serious revolution. I will fight for WP (no thats not a threat!) and try my best to make it better (make it not SUCK) but if I have to fight other Wikipedians whats the point, I have other things to do with myy time --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I watch a few hundred articles and fix vandalism I come across. My experience is not the same as Cyde's. Most vandals are casual and bored. I find simply redirecting them to some policy page usually keeps them busy and interested - and who knows, they might get hooked on working within the system :-) Stephen B Streater 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. But this is not the problem. The problem are edits like this one. It is a problem of mistrust from the community. A thick feel bad. But I must say I'm pleased of this message of Taxman (despite me being an opposer in Carnildo's RfA). I just hope this wasn't just an exception for Carnildo. I want to see more of this. For now, I assume good faith. -- Ligulem 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the messages asking Carnildo to step down should be regarded as in any way representative of any part of the Wikipedia community. That campaign was instigated by a person who has repeatedly engaged in bad faith attacks on Carnildo and one of his bots. -- Tony Sidaway 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I think it is a valid request to ask Carnildo to step down just as someone earlier suggested that the bureaucrats should have given Carnildo a chance to refuse adminship given the lack of consensus. Carnildo's response to the request to step down shows that he probably wouldn't have refused adminship if the bureaucrats had asked him in advance. I think it would be a gracious and dignified move on Carnildo's part to step down and pass an RFA based on a real consensus.

Nota bene: Please do not infer that I am trying to undo the action of the bureaucrats. I am willing to accept their decision. I think Carnildo will do fine as an admin even after the probationary period. I'm just saying that the way in which the decision was made has negative impacts on the process and the community and that Carnildo has an opportunity to help ameliorate them by stepping down and redoing the RFA. Hell, that action alone would make me vote in support.

His response to the request was "No, there's too much work to do" is also understandable. It's a question of weighing his valuable image work vs. trust in the RFA process. Me personally, I would have voted for honoring the RFA process. Obviously, Carnildo and the bureaucrats have different priorities. It's a legitimate difference of opinion. -- Richard 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

C'est le ton qui fait la musique. -- Ligulem 09:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So let's add some harmony. Stephen B Streater 09:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

probationary admin? Oh dear. Geni 10:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is vital to forgive one's past actions but not necessary forget them. Everyone makes mistakes here and people learn from mistakes more efficiently most of the time. Mistakes made are what defines us as editors on this project. If we fail to forgive this ex-admin, then for eternity, he would not be able to regain his admin status and this would most probably make him leave this project. Other admins too would be fearful of making mistakes if most users here are not tolerant of the errors admins make. This would indeed lead to a very stressful time here for our users with mops. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] As I said somewhere else it would be better if ArbCom simply had in place a process to review its desysoppings. If that had happened here, Carnildo would have been able to get his adminship back with a lot less sense of surprise to us and all and controversy on the boards. What went in his favour was that the very ArbCom members who'd desysopped him now wanted him back. Well, since ArbCom made the decision in the first place, I think we could have trusted it to review the decision. But when a seemingly standard RfA went ahead, allowing each of us to vote express a view, I had to say in honesty that I was not personally prepared to give him my trust. It never occurred to me that a lower threshold of what counts as consensus would be applied retrospectively, or that my view and other opposing views would carry less weight than normally; nor would it have occurred to those people who were opposed to it but either didn't think it was necessary to take part or didn't want to pile on. So we all knew where we stood, it really should have been announced in advance that normal expectations would not govern this RfA, not revealed or decided after the RfA had finished.

I accept the outcome, but the clean solution for the future is for all desysoppings to be reviewable at any time by ArbCom (with a routine review after about six months). Metamagician3000 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point for me to pursue what is already done. They have put all their trust on the one editor; In the event should probation fail or de-sysop occurs ever again, I think resignation from the crats' responsible should be forthcoming to protect the integrity of consensus on Wikipedia (if there is any in the first place). - Mailer  D iablo 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In the user rights log:

• 19:45, 8 August 2006 Raul654 (Talk | contribs | block) changed User:Doc glasgow's rights from (none) to sysop

As far as I remember Doc glasgow voluntarily gave up adminship after his vandalism spree. Now he gets his bit back without any RfA, which I'm sure he'd have failed. Any ideas how that happened?  Grue  18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc gave up his adminship in good standing, and so was entitled to request it back without an RfA. And so he did. Kelly Martin ( talk) 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In good standing? He gave up his adminship after a flurry of vandalism!  Grue  18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He was pissed off, and wanted to go out with a bang, I'm sure many of us have felt like that, it really was actually quite funny. Martin 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism spree"? Oh FFS. If you're going to misrepresent things that badly ... Cyde Weys 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone voluntarily gives up adminship, they should get it back upon request. If people were to start using voluntary desysopping as a means of getting out of trouble, there'd be grounds for concern, but as it is, I don't see why we'd worry about this. Friday (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Whether he is stable enough to continue as administrator, is another matter. However, I default to good faith: it is similar to requesting being blocked to cool down while influenced by conflicting emotions, or to take a break to study. -- ReyBrujo 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether he's "stable" enough? What does that mean? I find it kind of funny that nobody even notices he got adminship back for over a month because he hasn't done anything wrong. And now, a month later, it somehow becomes an issue? I don't think so. -- Cyde Weys 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Syops should be good moel Wikipedians. Redirecting DRV into Tony Sidaway's user talk page is something I don't consider model. Hbdragon88 06:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No view on this case, but out of curiosity, where do I find the "user rights log"? Newyorkbrad 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here. -- ReyBrujo 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to the user's contributions, and click on log. Michael 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. (Interestingly, the log seems to list only upgrades, not downgrades.) Newyorkbrad 19:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because desysopping can only be done by stewards, and thus is shown on the meta rights log. -- Cyde Weys 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That isn't quite true but no matter. Geni 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Who else can desysop? Developers, sure, by editing the database, but that doesn't happen. What are you referring to? — Dan | talk 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

this. Geni 12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that's possible anymore. Ral315 ( talk) 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you feel he shouldn't be an admin, then do exactly what you would have done if he hadn't stepped down - take him to arbcom and let them deal with it. -- Tango 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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:

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. 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:

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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.

1. 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/
2. 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)

Just to let people know, I've added a new comment there. Please reply on that page. Petros471 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing this to rectify something that I wrote in a couple of edit summaries (which cannot be altered): I accidentaly misread the deadline on Ram-Man's RfB, which was September 7, and not September 9, as I accidentaly read it. This means that, when the RfB was to close normally (which was noted by Ram-Man and Voice of All at the appropriate time), I misread a withdrawal. I have explained the situation in detail to Ram-Man in his talk page, so feel free to read it. But I wanted to go on the record and say that Ram-Man did not withdraw, and his RfB ran its full term.
I have assessed the end result as I would normally at a regular closing time, and I've arrived at the following result: insufficient support consensus to promote to Bureaucratship. I arrived at a final result where 87% of the participants supported a promotion, which is below what is required for promotion to Bureaucratship, which is higher than for Adminship. Redux 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've accepted this as a simple mistake, so let's not have any undue fuss over this (in light of the Carnildo decision and other recent criticisms of the process). I'm thankful for all the comments made during the RfB (and I won't be spamming anyone's talk pages about it either). I'll work on addressing the concerns raised, and I may be back again later for another attempt. -- RM 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're taking it in the ideal way. - Taxman ^Talk 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well of course. The way I see it is when I initially proposed the idea of becoming a "specialist bureaucrat", I didn't know what to expect. I don't think anyone else has ever done that. So I was both somewhat surprised by the amount of criticism (mainly citing lack of RfA and AfD experience), but on the flip side I was surprised that I did as well as I did at 87%. I assumed from the start that this could be contentious. -- RM 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Who knew, but I became an admin with 6 unanimous informal votes. My have times changed in just over 3 years. -- RM 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

<this section broken off from the Rectification section above>

I reiterate my point on Redux's talk page: Admins and users should not be closing out RfAs or RfBs that are not clear failures. This one was within a few percentage points, and should have been left to a bureaucrat to close, even when it was past its stated deadline. I assume that this was an honest mistake, VOA closes many failures, but this was the first I can remember that was truly close and should have been left alone. NoSeptember 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I only closed voting per the voting time period already laid out. It is a hard number that was well passed, I did not close the whole RfA. A bcrat still had to come by and make the promotion decision and archive it. Voice-of-All 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing off voting is a big deal. Can you point to other cases when admins have closed off voting while still expecting a bureaucrat to make a pass/fail decision? And an extention was not out of the question in this case, or a bureaucrat just deciding to leave it run a few more hours without saying anything to see how it developed. Your action had an impact that wasn't up to you to make. Since when do we non-bureaucrats have the right to tell people to stop voting on an otherwise still pending RfA? NoSeptember 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to be confrontational, but I agree. Comments up until a bcrat closes a nomination should be taken into the consensus, so close ones should never be closed by anyone but a bureaucrat. - Taxman ^Talk 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be confrontational. It strikes me that the "partial close" concept appears to be a new one, a bit of a surprise. Had I realized you two were already discussing this, I wouldn't have brought it up again (having already done so at Redux's talk page). Cheers, NoSeptember 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask this question. If "Admins and users should not be closing out RfAs or RfBs that are not clear failures", then in light of the recent Carnildo decision, maybe what you meant to say is "Admins and users should not be closing out RfAs or RfBs in any case", since in the case of Carnildo, this was a clear failure under previous precedent? -- RM 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, by the time an RfA has run for nearly a full week, there is rarely any good reason for anyone but a bureaucrat to close it (a candidate withdrawal is the obvious exception), it would have been closed early if there was a good reason to close it. We have had discussions about closes earlier in the process, like this discussion, but if it isn't under 50%, or if it hasn't acquired a bunch of oppose votes without any real support, and its not a joke or trolling, then it should not be closed lightly. There was precedent for former admins being promoted with a lower support level, so Carnildo's RfA was certainly close enough to leave alone, and as a full term RfA, should be handled by a bureaucrat in any case. NoSeptember 18:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that all makes perfect sense. I just wasn't sure what you were saying by your comment, but your clarification makes sense to me, and is in line with what I would expect. -- RM 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

IF you're being deliberately difficult, please don't. IMV no non-bcrat should ever have closed or removed a case like Carnildo's where there was over 60% support and heated arguments on both sides. Non-bcrats should only close genuinely obvious failures - like when there's one support vote and 10 opposes and the user has less than 200 edits... The Land 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The following should not be read as sarcastic or cynical but just matter-of-fact: At this point, we do not know what the lower floor is on support levels required for promotion. It could be 60%, it could be 51%. So I would advise against any closure of an RFA that has substantial support (i.e. close to 50%). Someone could be running 45% support / 45% oppose and then in the last day bump just over the 50% mark via some last minute votes. Who knows if that person might be a "special case" that the b'crats decide can be promoted with just 51% support?

Now, I have to admit that I did not realize that non-b'crats and non-admins could close an RFA. Does this mean I (a non-admin) could have closed Qrc2006's obviously hopeless RFA? Where do I find instructions for closing an RFA? -- Richard 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFAF and study recent RfAs that were closed early by admins, and stick to doing only those that are as obvious failures as the ones listed there. And you can copy the tags etc. from a closed RfA to get it closed out in the proper format. NoSeptember 19:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I more or less agree with fellow bureaucrat Essjay's reasoning that an RfA should never be closed early unless it is clear there is no chance of success and less than 25% support after a substantial number of contributors to the consensus is a decent guideline for bureaucrats. I would prefer non bureaucrats to stick to even more obvious cases like trolling, sockpuppet candidates after a substantial number of votes, or people that have withdrawn. But I'll point out that there are respected people that don't feel anyone but a bureaucrat should close anything other than a withdrawn nomination and that if people nominate themselves or others they should be allowed to go the full time. I don't fully agree, and I believe that opinion is in the minority, but it should be considered as a valid reason to seriously limit the cases where a non bureaucrat should close nominations. - Taxman ^Talk 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've closed a couple of withdrawals, mainly to get them off the page as fast as possible and spare the nominee any additional discomfort, and maybe one troll, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have closed many requests, almost certainly more than any non-crat, without any complaints. I have never closed a request even close to 25% approval and, to be completely honest, I don't feel I am any less qualified to make the decision than a bureaucrat. I close these requests with the sole purpose of protecting the candidates and with no intention of challenging the authority of the bureaucrats. We elect bureaucrats to make the tough calls, not the blindingly obvious ones, anyone can make those. Just as anyone can close an easy AfD debate, there is no conceivable reason, beyond sheer bloody-minded bureaucracy, why non-crats shouldn't be allowed to close an RfA that has clearly failed. It is especially important in this situation as real people, with real emotions, are involved. If a bureaucrat doesn't close a clearly failing nomination in order to protect the editor involved, I have no problem whatsoever in doing it. Rje 23:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved. There is nothing unclear about this. The wording has been up there ten months and as straightforward as you could want it to be. Marskell 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that should be changed; the general consensus is that users can close a nom if it's obviously failing, like 0/20/0 in the first 12 hours. It's silly to wait until a crat comes around to end the piling on. -- Rory096 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Which someone did today (see below), although the tally wasn't 0/20/0 (more like 11/32/5). I noticed this wasn't consistent with what's written above, but the combination of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW seems to have carried the day. Newyorkbrad 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a proposal over at WP:ESPERANZA to provide moral support to failed RFA candidates. See Wikipedia:Esperanza/Proposals#Moral support program. The key idea is to encourage RFA candidates in feeling that, regardless of the harshness of the criticisms leveled at them during the RFA process, they are worthy Wikipedians who might yet become worthy of adminship and succeed in a future RFA. Your input on the value of starting up such a program is welcome and solicited.

One issue that I see is how such a program should be operated. Should it be run from Esperanza or should it just be made part of the RFA process? I think it would be useful if the person who closed a failed RFA would notify the moral support program so that we could assign someone to review the RFA and provide encouragement and constructive criticism on how to address issues raised in the RFA.

For an example of how this could work, see my comments to User:Qrc2006 at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#admin about his recently failed RFA. Now, admittedly, one would expect candidates to read the comments on their own RFA and research any issues that they don't understand. How could one hope to be an admin if they aren't willing to do this basic homework? On the other hand, if they had done this homework BEFORE applying for adminship, they would have been more likely to have had a successful RFA. One goal of my lengthy response to Qrc2006 was to forestall another doomed RFA in the near future. He actually asked if tomorrow was too soon! -- Richard 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Moral support is patronising to say the least. When I see an unsuitable and opposed candidate who is otherwise a decent editor, I leave a positive note in the comments or neutral section, or sometimes on their talk page. Whoops, I thought you meant moral support for failing candidates, rather than failed candidates, that is a good thing! Martin 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If operated properly, this could be worthwhile. If it's designed mainly to educate newbie candidates who may not understand the RfA process, it may work well. However, care needs to be taken to not interfere with the RfA process. For example, I strongly disagree that the closer of an RfA should need to inform anyone. It should be the responsibility of whomever is providing this "moral support" to watch over RfA and choose their targets. Also, this moral support should not take the form of actual "moral support" !votes in the RfA. SuperMachine 18:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just to make sure it is crystal clear, this is not in any way intended to interfere with the RFA process by "stacking the vote". This is entirely about lifting the spirits of someone who may not have realized the issues that other editors have with their Wikipedia experience, editing skills or interaction on Talk Pages. It would only kick-in AFTER the RFA had been closed.

-- Richard 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard brings up some good points. There obviously has to be a line established between providing assistance to the candidate and vote-stacking. I think the program is a great idea and don't feel that moral support is at all patronising during the RfA process, by the way hoopydink ^{Conas tá tú?} 21:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, this sounds completely pointless. It's the equivilent of tampering with historical documents, if you wish to say encouraging words or emontional support place on their talk page where it belongs. Once RfAs are closed, they are closed. Open an editor review, give them a flower, but don't edit pages that are closed for pure historical purposes. It's tainting something when it occured, we don't rewrite history books to show some kind of an opinion, we write about what we know about to the best of our extent. This seems excessive and a tad unneccessary. Yank sox 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with part of what you say, Yanksox, but I think Hoopydink is right too. What is wrong with moral support during and after a RfA? I found my recent one fairly stressful; I hadn't anticipated the effect of not wanting to appear to spam or solicit votes meaning I felt I couldn't as freely chat to people on their talk pages (as is my habit!) during the process. If it had failed, which it nearly did, I am sure I would have appreciated some support. The talk page of the RfA, as well as one's own talk page, seem like appropriate places for this. Spot on that nobody should edit the actual RfA itself on this basis though. -- Guinnog 21:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Either you or I have the scope of the project confused, Yanksox. I'm not aware that anyone will be editing a closed RfA (which is silly, I agree). I assume that a lot of this moral support, which is simply an extension of admin coaching, will be done on the candidate's talk page and/or some Esperanza page hoopydink ^{Conas tá tú?} 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I just believe the RfA talk page should stay on the topic of the RfA. If you want to guide them and support them, do that on Esperenza or their talk. I'm not objecting to this at all, I just think RfA pages should be left alone. Yank sox 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA are divided in three parts: before, during and after. Until recently, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship took care of the "during" part. Then Wikipedia:Editor review opened, taking care of the "before". I believe it is suitable to have someone/something taking care of the "after", especially if the RFA failed. However, the same way Editor review isn't part of the RFA main process itself, I suggest keeping it separately. In fact, if possible the people in charge of the Moral support should not participate in RFA discussions, to prevent the candidate feeling he is being patronized. That is my opinion, though. -- ReyBrujo 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good point Rey. Yanksox, what is your objection to offering moral support on the RfA talk page, after the RfA has closed? I amn't taking a strong view on this, just curious about why you think this would be a bad thing. -- Guinnog 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

@ Yanksox: Hes not talking RFA talk page either I dont think. His response to QRC was on the village pump where that uiser asked about his failed RFA. I think its a good idea, sorta like retrospective admin coaching. Good luck with it ;-) --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the messages would be posted on the user's talk page... I may be misreading the proposal, but that's what I deduced. I can see Yanksox's point about the RFA remaining strictly for the RFA. And anyway, I personally wouldn't look at the RFA talk page for nice messages if I had failed and was feeling disappointed. Srose (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflice) Eh, it could be my crossnamespace paranoia, but I just don't think it's something that's would be on topic, and not entirely approate for the RfA. Moral Support votes are iffy okay with me, but after it's closed just seems weird placing it on the talk. Seems drastically misplaced. Yank sox 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Srose that the RfA talk page is probably an odd place to look for support after an unsuccessful request. I'm sure we'll be able to construct the program so it's done away from RfA itself (unless, of course, participants want to voice their opinions while the RfA is live). The proposal was just recently presented and I'm sure that it will work itself out before it becomes an actual program hoopydink ^{Conas tá tú?} 21:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This should absolutely not be part of the RfA process here. This page is for one purpose only: evaluating candidates for adminship. Anyone may or may not set up some project or have it part of existing projects with similar goals, but it has no place here. — Centrx→ talk • 21:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was my suggestion, and I don't want it to distract from what seems basically a good idea. -- Guinnog 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to add to What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not Esperanza"? -- Tony Sidaway 23:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to discover any redeeming quality in empty, institutional, boilerplate "goodwill". This suggestion seems needlessly patronising, and in my view its potential to annoy failed candidates greatly outweighs its ability to comfort them. — Dan | talk 23:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, whenever I try to help someone or comfort someone, they're very grateful, and they tend to stay here. (Well, in one case, someone got angry and thought I was agreeing with the person that was disagreeing with them, but we're talking majority.) Esperanza and its programs are very valuable to Wikipedia: it helps to retain members and keep a level of contentment, if you will, between editors. I agree that perhaps we shouldn't go overboard with this, but I think further discussion should take place at the proposal's page (see the beginning of this thread). Srose (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Retaining users isn't necessarily the goal here. As with the userbox fiasco, if we end up attracting and retaining the wrong kind of user then the project may suffer. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and that many mutual support groups exist on the internet, but while we must make every attempt to retain good editors, Wikipedia is probably not one of those places that should have mutual support groups, coffee clubs and whatnot. Those people would be much happier elsewhere. -- Tony Sidaway 00:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

" Decent people shouldn't live here. They'd be happier somewhere else."? Seriously, though, I don't see the point of bringing this here, as Esperanza is well within its purview to talk to candidates who do not pass RFA, without ever getting any "official sanction". Just do it on their talk page... -- nae' blis 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

People do provide moral support for each other. If an RfA fails, supporters of the user will often express their feelings on their talk pages, try to cheer them up, say things like, "I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. Better luck next time." If we had some set thing, then it would take away from the personal factors involved in this. Michael 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you're right that this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, but if we scare off all of the newcomers with "Oppose, too new" and "Oppose; is this a joke?", eventually there aren't going to be very many editors at all. Still, this is not the venue for this discussion. Srose (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of being nice to people, and of not biting the new users. I am opposed to giving "official sanction" for Esperanza to do anything, and in particular I am opposed to formally integrating sometihng like this into the RfA process or using RfA pages for the purpose. I'm also personally opposed to an official program for comforting people, which seems like the worst kind of instruction creep to me. But of course Experanza members, like everyone else, are free to do whatever they like on users' talk pages, or on Esperanza subpages if they prefer. -- SCZenz 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ESP doesnt really DO anything, though...it seems. I don't see much Wiki-love radiating out from ESP...a lot of other things but not much Wiki love. I was thinking of sending Carnildo a "fair use cookie" had his Rfa been allowed to justly fail, but somehow I doubt that's what ESP has in mind;>-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza is not an official branch of Wikipedia, and has no more authority to do or not do anything. If they want to do something on their own initiative, fine, but let's not incorporate it into policy or guidelines. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a dispute between a young editor and other editors concerning the formation WikiProject. After I warned this particular user for his civility, I saw a userbox in his archived user page that said he was an admin here. I went to his RfA page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emir214 and was shocked to find that it was an exact copy of my RfA - just the support votes - at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita. Any thoughts on how I should go about handling this? Or if I should even do anything about it all? Needless to say, a bureaucrat did not give him any sysop rights. -- Chris S. 05:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked them for one week. Impersonation of an administrator under any circumstances should not be tolerated at all. I suggest you forward this to WP:ANI. --  Netsnipe   ►  05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The fake RfA should be deleted, too. Michael 05:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted that page because it's forged. -- WinHunter ^{( talk)} 05:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and post a note on WP:ANI. -- Chris S. 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Then again, he (claims) to be twelve years old. How incivil was he? Did he threaten anyone? --  Netsnipe   ►  05:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He said in Tagalog "WALANG UNIFICATION! WALA! WALA! WALA! NAGMAMATIGAS AKO, ISA PANG NABASA KO YANG MERGE MERGE NA YAN AY BAKA I-AFD KO PA YANG TAMBAYAN NYO!" Which in English means (I'll spare the caps) "There is no unification! None! None! None! I am standing my ground, if I read one more about that merging I might just go ahead and put that Tambayan of yours up for AfD! -- Chris S. 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So he got a little excited... Not that big a deal really. I've seen Wikipedians who are probably a lot older than him get a lot hotter under the collar. Someone should tell him to cool down and explain to him why faking adminship is a blockable offense. Anyone volunteer?

-- Richard 06:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't mind anyone overturning my block when he appeals and is repentant about it. --  Netsnipe   ►  06:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked for now based upon [7] and given a stern warning instead. --  Netsnipe   ►  06:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

New (proposed) policy by User:Tony Sidaway. Looks like redundant staff to me abakharev 09:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I have not been happy with the "RFA is not a vote" text that Tony Sidaway et al have composed and inserted into the article. However, I been waiting to see what the reaction of other Wikipedians was before expressing my opinion.

I'm even less happy that the change was composed in a separate sandbox that was not widely advertised thus resulting in a change to the description of policy that was composed by a handful of admittedly highly respected Wikipedians but nonetheless a handful. I think this smacks of cabalism and, whether such behavior was intentional or not, even the appearance of cabalism is detrimental to the Wikipedia community.

That said, the result of this lack of transparency is that there is now a budding edit war over this text. The edit war over the "Please update the (vote)-tallies" text is just a proxy for a dispute about whether or not RFA is a vote.

Edit wars are never good but a high-profile one such as this is very bad.

I propose the following compromise (variations of which I have advocated earlier in this discussion)...

"The RFA process includes a non-binding vote to determine the level of support for an adminship candidate. Bureaucrats give significant weight to the reasoned opinions of respected Wikipedians that are expressed during the non-binding vote. However, the vote serves more as a vehicle for discussion rather than as a simple up-or-down vote."

-- Richard 14:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fair to me. -- WikiCats 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute over whether or not RfA is a vote. RfA isn't a vote. It is wrong if people hold that opinion, and it's dangerous if these pages give them that impression.

So, while I appreciate your efforts at compromise, I am unhappy with any text that suggests RfA is a vote. We should be encouraging people not just to 'vote' support, oppose or neutral but to explain their reasons and engage in discussion. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ ^talk 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a vote is a matter of semantics, since it clearly contains votes, by the normal definition of vote. But it is not just a collection of votes, it is also a collection of comments, all leading to consensus and as such the compromise sounds good to me. I strongly protest to changing the article without adequate discussion and probably a vote, considering how contentious this is. Actually, I agree that this compromise is inadequate for the reasons just stated. It doesn't even mention consensus! I like the original text on the article page better. -- RM 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is only to the people like you that just pay lip service to the idea that RFA isn't a vote and that voting on everything is evil that the concept is just semantics. It is not semantics whether it is a vote or not. RFA won't stop being a vote until people stop claiming and believing it is. Intentional or not, dismissing the argument as semantics means you are favoring including the harmful word "vote," and that's no small thing. Calling it a non-binding vote, still encourages people to, well, vote, disrupting the consensus-building process. I had to read through your comment three times before deciding that your calling for a vote on the matter wasn't sarcasm. Voting on this, just like RfA and almost anything, is a terrible idea. RfA is not, never was, and never will be intended to be a vote. Erm, you want us to vote on that? You are correct on one thing, the wording should mention consensus, but only that. Dmcdevit· t 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Take it down a notch, please, Dmcdevit. Statements like "people like you that just pay lip service", etc, don't in any way contribute to Wikipedia. Also, a statement like "RfA is not, never was, and never will be intended to be a vote" ignores the early RFAs, where comments like "Can I vote on RFAs?" Were replied with, "Yes, you can vote"-type answers. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, why does my opinion not in any way contribute to Wikipedia? In any case, your point is a redherring. The fact that people have treated RfA as a vote does not mean that that is good or that that is the intent of RfA. If so, I wouldn't need to be commenting here at all. This is why I worded that statement the way I did. Dmcdevit· t 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. How do you determine whether or not there is a consensus and what that consensus opinion is without taking a vote?

Wikipedia has its own special definition of "consensus" which means "as long as nobody raises an objection that the powers that be consider valid enough to overturn a developing consensus". First you gotta see where the majority of people stand and then you have to evaluate whether any of the minority "voters" have raised an objection worth overturning the majority.

At the end of the day, there is a "vote" to determine where the majority opinion is. It's a "non-binding vote" because the "powers that be" are not obliged to follow the dictates of the majority EVEN if it is a supermajority. Nor are they obligated to follow the dictates of the minority even if the minority is so large as to reduce the majority to a simple majority.

NB: This "non-binding vote" is also called a "straw poll" in some Wikipedia policy and guideline documents.

-- Richard 18:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple: if you need to take a vote, consensus does not exist. Just ask any Quaker :-) Guy 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whew! Really? I think the above description means "Someone makes a proposal and if no one objects, there is a consensus. If anybody objects, then by definition, there is no consensus."

Applying this to RFA, we could just dispense with the support votes altogether. Just nominate the poor guy and if anyone objects with a compelling reason, he fails. Support votes are irrelevant, we assume they are there. If you object with a reasoned explanation, your vote counts towards the absence of a consensus. If there are enough objections, the RFA fails.

Personally, I don't think this approach will ever fly here at Wikipedia but it's an interesting concept.

-- Richard 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to add a little bit to the end. Something like:

"The RFA process includes a non-binding vote to determine the level of support for an adminship candidate. Bureaucrats give significant weight to the reasoned opinions of respected Wikipedians that are expressed during the non-binding vote. However, the vote serves more as a vehicle for discussion rather than as a simple up-or-down vote. Notwithstanding that arbitrary upper and lower limits exists and should any Bureacrat use their judgement and make a decision which differs from these limits some users will carp on and on and on and on about it venting their spleen while avoiding any effort to actually contribute to the Encyclopediac aspects of the project."

ALR

LOL... Thanks for the second good chuckle of the morning. The first one can be found here. -- Richard 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

(Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everyking). Everyking's RFA has been open for ten hours only. Because the matter is controversial, we should expect people who have been involved in some way in these matters to vote early. However, I believe that the RFA should stay open longer to allow the community at large to voice their opinion, not only the few people who happened to be online in these ten hours. Tony Sidaway invoked WP:SNOWBALL when unlisting, but I don't think it has anything to do with the snowball clause at this point. I propose relisting it and letting it run for at least another full day, if not longer. — mark ✎ 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Crossposting is probably not the best thing to do, let's keep the discussion in one place only. Thanks! — mark ✎ 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Although there is a related discussion at WP:BN as well. NoSeptember 12:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So I can comment without supporting/opposeing or being neutral. Like I can on AFD. The current one appears to be for the various edit count things only. Geni 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. While we're at it, could we agree to remove all that clutter such as stats and q&a to the end? This is about whether the guy is fit to be an admin, not the output of some bloody computer program and not what he has to say about himself on the hustings. You actually have to look at his edits in detail, there's probably no other way, and putting all that clutter at the front gives completely the wrong impression. -- Tony Sidaway 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a comment section, but like Tony said, alot of clutter is there. Yank sox 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, Geni, what sort of comments are you thinking of that couldn't be covered in a reply to a support/oppose/neutral, or in a question to the candidate, or on the candidate's talk page, or on the rfa's talkpage? I understand what you mean about the current comments section, and I'm not rejecting the idea of de-cluttering it; I just can't think of an example of a comment that doesn't already have a reasonable place (or two, or three.) Picaroon9288 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

things simular to nomination statements. Info that I think is important in a particular case. Basicialy where I want to say stuff while resevering judgement on the candidate. Geni 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the redesign I proposed was to move the comment section to the top. This certainly was not to move up the edit counts and statistics, it was to encourage its use for discussion. (Until recently, of course, it was much easier because we didn't have huge tables of edit counts, just a line, but now edit counts are on the talk page, so it should be easier.) Feel free to comment in the comments section; if you start doing it, hopefully others will also. -- Rory096 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a consensus building excersize. You can drop all the sections except comments! ;-) Use that section, folks! Kim Bruning 08:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've used the comments section a couple of times to make comments. See the RfA for Runcorn. If you put your comment at the bottom of the section it sits nicely directly above the support section, in the current design. Tyrenius 06:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to bring this up, so I'll mention it here, since it is related to my recent failed RfB. This could be a problem with the current Bot approval process, but two bots are currently awaiting bot flags and there are no bureaucrats paying attention to the situation, so perhaps they will notice it here. I was hoping that the recent exposure would have caused more bureaucrats to pay attention to the situation. The bots are listed at the Wikipedia:Bots/Approval log. It isn't terribly difficult to do, afterall, but it does point to the reason for my RfB. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- RM 02:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize entirely with your frustration; yours is in my view an example of a request that failed, to the detriment of the community, because of oppose voters' specious justification. I've granted bot status to the two approved accounts; I wish I could promise to watch the bot pages for future approvals, but I doubt I'll remember it. If it ever becomes especially backlogged, please do drop me a note and I'll take care of it. — Dan | talk 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If qualified users wanting to help the project are being delayed because of bureaucratic (no pun intended) delays, it seems to me that is an unfortunate and counterproductive situation.

If the issue is that bureaucrats, because of their manifold other duties, miss requests for bot approval that they need to review, then either create a special page requesting bot flags for approval-group-approved bots, and have all the 'crats watchlist that page, or post the flag requests on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, which exists for the express purpose of advising the Bureaucrats of things they need to know about.

Alternatively, if the bureaucrats simply rubber-stamp the approval by the bots group without any independent role beyond formally affixing the flag, which I gather may be the case, and this is causing delays, then the flagging function could simply be delegated to the head of the approvals group.

Perhaps matters are more complicated than this, but I don't see it. Regards, Newyorkbrad

There is no "head" of the group now. The idea of letting the group have the bot flagging right is interesting, though perhaps the extra "oversight" of a bcrat might in some way be useful. Voice-of-All 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me why bot-flagging is a crat only thing anyways. The level of trust required doesn't seem to be more than what we normally give admins. JoshuaZ 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Letting any admin do it could cause problems and conflict of interest issues. I think that giving it to the approvals groups is far more reasonable, but giving it to crats is more security. Voice-of-All 03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well we don't really want admins randomly giving their powerful accounts bot flags. -- Tony Sidaway 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. I the above meant to be sarcastic? JoshuaZ 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Giving admins the ability to set bot flags basically adds the risk of a bad admin setting bot flags to users that shouldn't be granted those abilities. And a bot just flies under the radar in terms of avoiding RC detection. This is the reason they go through such a vigorous process to ensure that they are acceptable. The bureaucrat setting bot flags issue is one of added security. As for the process of alerting bureaucrats to new bots, the BAG is going to be working on streamlining the process so that future approvals are faster. But for now, we are stuck with the old somewhat broken system. -- RM 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(ec) How about this: the flag can be conferred by a member of the bot approval group who is also an administrator? That would ensure the combination of tech expertise and community trust. I understand why bureaucrats were included in the process, but if they are automatically flagging all bots approved by the approval group, I don't see value added. Newyorkbrad 03:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically a bureaucrat must verify that the approval is authentic, although I can't say if they actually do that. They also have the option to look at the discussion for the bot to make sure that they agree. It isn't hard for them to do, and would be an added layer of security that would be great. As for allowing members of the approval group to set bot flags, they'd have to be bureaucrats or there would have to be some sort of WikiMedia software change. Letting bureaucrats do it seems easier that adding yet another extension... maybe. -- RM 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about the software so I will defer to you on that issue. In which case, see above for suggestions about where to post things so the 'crats will see them. (I also think we should make everyone read this exchange before your next RfB. :) ) Newyorkbrad 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the software to be an expert. I'm kinda guessing on how this works. But for a change like that, you'd at least need 1) community consensus and 2) developer approval. -- RM 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be very easy. "$wgGroupPermissions['makebot']['makebot'] = true" in the php (any of them). That would add a "makebot" usergroup. Voice-of-All 03:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which, with the current software, could only have users assigned to it by stewards. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey well there you go. Easy to accomplish. Still though, I for one LIKE the idea that a bureaucrat has to do it. The added security it helpful. If you can pass an RfB, I trust you to do it. -- RM 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what the Bureaucrat's noticeboard is for. Quickly after they are mentioned there, things get taken care of. - Taxman ^Talk 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to find that page, but apparently I must have searched for it under the wrong name. I should have assumed that if there was a AN, there should equally be a BN, but I don't always use shortcuts, as I tend to use bookmarks and I've never needed BN before. Well, now I know. -- RM 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Though it shouldn't have to be posted there. BCrats should be watching bot approvals anyway. Voice-of-All 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that this issue was brought up earlier, but responses were more personal opinions than they were suggestions for fine-tuning the procedure. There are a lot of things that should be addressed directly by the people involved with RfAs. As it stands, the RfA procedure is not nearly as good at admin selection as it could be. Your direct involvement will serve to make sure there is good "QC" for potential candidates, while assuring that some very poor criticisms do not block candidates that would do a fine job.

One large example of poor criteria is people that reject solely based on edit count. It was mentioned above that edit count should logically go up over time, but that is somewhat detrimental to the project. Increasing edit count serves only to delay the acceptance of candidates that are interested in admin duties, so the backlog grows bigger. Meanwhile, the people that have that many edits may not even be interested in admin tasks. In my view, people emphasize edit count so much because they think that editing more automatically means better understanding of policy. The thing is, it takes very little understanding of policy just to add content to the encyclopedia. Minor edits significantly raise this number with no indication of increased understanding as well.

Time with the project is a very important factor, but IMO should not be left to stringent limits such as: "longer than this, I accept the candidate but shorter than this I oppose." I see people rejecting candidates because they have not been with the project for 9 months, despite good work for the time they have been involved. This should not be; if a candidate has proven themselves worthy, shouldn't they be able to begin helping reduce the backlog immediately? I propose you judge candidates based on merit, with time as an afterthought. To be forward, bureaucrats can make the judgement on whether candidates have proven that they will not abuse the tools given to them. To oppose solely because of time with the project is ignoring the quality of edits that they have done in that time, and is the one of the biggest reasons the backlog is growing.

The last big issue with the process that I feel should be addressed is the demand for expertise in every area. For example, an editor may be applying for admin rights to pursue vandals and has no intention of working with pictures. Despite this, an "oppose" vote is cast because the candidate has not dealt much with images. This is almost like insisting that a chemist be required to sew, just because their lab has access to sewing equipment of a neighboring business. Assuming the editor has been here long enough to show that they do not intend to abuse their powers, isn't it improper to reject them because they do not excel in one thing that they do not even intend to do? It seems candidates that want to focus on one area are often rejected, just because they do not have experience in a totally different area. The easiest way to say it is that you can either try to seperate the powers, or you can accept that admins may not want to do everything that they are allowed to do. With the growing amount of work there is to be done here, reducing the number of people that can help - even if just in one area - is contributing to backlogs and longer AIV times.

The most recent candidate is a good example of how the system has the effect of devaluing candidates that want to focus on one activity. He wants to fight vandals (almost expected of any admin), but people oppose him because he has not worked on "encyclopedia writing." He may just make it, but the small minority that oppose for that reason hopefully think about what would happen if every vandal fighter were rejected because they don't concentrate on lengthy article edits. As a parting thought I ask you; where does it say that someone has to enjoy doing every type of admin activity, or devote time to doing everything, to make them a good candidate? Markovich292 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been enough responses to topics below since I posted this that I just thought I would put out the request again for people that are currently heavily involved in the RfA procedure to respond here. Please give it a read, even if it is just a quick once-over. I didn't post this in a policy change section because it really isn't a policy issue: it is just a suggestion on how people that vote on RfAs can improve adminisrator presence without sacrificing quality. Because of that I was really hoping that the people here would talk it over.

Thank you. Markovich292 20:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• The issues you raise are age-old. Reality; the situation is unlikely to change. People are free to use whatever criteria they wish to use in evaluating a nominee for their appropriateness for adminship. If we generate a list of acceptable criteria, we might as well generate a checklist and automatically pass any admin candidates who meet the criteria. -- Durin 22:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Going by a checklist probably wouldn't be an improvement, I personally like the way it is set out now, in principle. The problem seems to lie in the editors that frequently cast votes at RfA. Many of them use reasons for rejection that are absolutely trivial. Sometimes others have reasons that are not trivial per se, but their reasons certainly do not reflect a concern for wikipedia's needs. If this issue is age-old with people making the same criticisms that I have, I am suprised that some/many of the principle voters at RfA have not gotten the hint that they have not adapted their voting to the needs of wikipedia. Markovich292 23:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect people see the "needs" of Wikipedia very much through the prism of their own activities: some content-writers are seemingly offended at the idea of people getting the mop without a FA under their belt; vandal-fighters want to see other vandal-fighters sysopped; metapedians want people whose metapedian agenda appears to align with their own; wikignomes are too occupied with wikignoming to participate at RFA at all. And the very occasional person opposes everyone, for whatever reason, and with whatever rationale. People are to be applauded when they transcend their own preconceptions, perhaps, rather than anyone being too surprised when they don't. Personally, if I were to propose significant RFA reform, it would be to introduce some modest suffrage requirement, and to allow 'crats to strike out votes that are unrationalised, or have rationales that the community has indicated are unreasonable. (So a "line item" veto in effect, rather than the "let the BCs decide in conclave" that has been suggested by way of big-bang reform.) Any proposal that changes the role of BCs of course suffers from the objection that it's not the job they were elected to do, however, and the lack of any term limit or "recall" provision for 'crats, but the above would I think at least be less drastic than some. Alai 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Carnildo RfA, a group of bureaucrats—whose job, according to WP:RfA and WP:CRAT, is to "review the discussion to see whether there is a general community consensus for promotion" and grant administrator access "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community"—resolved, in backroom discussion, to promote the candidate in a decision which makes no mention of consensus, and only references community opinion to say that while many users oppose Carnildo's adminship, he is being promoted anyway. The ensuing uproar shows that many users were shocked and upset by this highly irregular decision, and by the lack of transparency which led to it. The following suggestion is an attempt to limit further disturbances by making the promotion process more participatory and transparent.

My proposal is to reduce the adminship-related role of bureaucrats and to transfer as much as possible of their responsibilities to the community. Bureaucrats currently have a two-step job at RfA:

1. Gauge consensus for promotion.
2. If and only if consensus is present, promote.

Step 2 requires a technical ability ( Special:Makesysop) not available to the community at large. But there is no technical reason why the community cannot perform Step 1. There are a variety of ways it might do so, and proposals are welcome. Here's one: an RfA runs for seven days, as now. After that time, anyone may add a header indicating a result: either consensus or no consensus. If anyone objects, they can remove it; if anyone objects to that, they can put it back. If necessary, discussion continues, shifting from gathering consensus to gauging consensus. When the header stabilizes (perhaps by staying up for a certain length of time) then a bureaucrat may close the RfA with that result. Consensus at RfA would thus resemble consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia, which is signalled by stability of content. That way, everyone can help to determine the result, discussion is public, the community makes the tough call of gauging consensus, and bureaucrats simply implement the result specified to them. But that's just one way for the community to perform Step 1; I'm open to others. Tim Smith 04:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer having users who have been designated by the community to gauge consensus, because they are trusted. Reaching community consensus on what the consensus is sounds like a recipe for divisive edit warring and chaos. RfA, like AfD, has people to gauge consensus precisely because the header wouldn't stabilize in controversial cases—ever. So I like the 'crats as they are, even when they (very) occasionally make decisions different than I would've if I were in their place. -- SCZenz 04:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If a case is so controversial that the header does not stabilize, that's a sign that there is no consensus for the adminship. Hopefully, that fact would be recognized as the discussion drags on, lending increasing support to the "no consensus" side, which would eventually prevail, unless its advocates are so few in number that they are impeding an obvious consensus, in which case they would finally be overwhelmed for disrupting Wikipedia.

Although administrators and bureaucrats are trusted at the time they gain their positions, there is no guarantee that they will be trusted thereafter, due to the lack of a community-based recall process. It is especially dangerous to rely on bureaucrats to gauge community consensus at RfA when (1) they issue decisions which make no mention of consensus and override precedent without public consultation, (2) they engage in backroom discussion to which the community is not privy, (3) their decisions to promote are irreversible by community-based recall, and (4) they themselves are not recallable. A trust-building first step would be for all bureaucrats to join Category:Administrators open to recall, and I encourage them to do so. Tim Smith 11:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

At first, I would be inclined to agree with that, but there a few problems that, off the top of my head, would be created. The current system keeps the complexity of the operation very low, whereas the system you describe above relies heavily on discussion, and is much more complicated than the current role of the community. This would often end with nothing more than a back and forth argument with no definite concensus. Also, a community concensus is often not going to be a good indicator of how well someone would be at their admin abilities. The voting is open to anyone, so people that are good acquaintences may blindly trust the candidate, while bitter "enemies" will oppose them at every turn. This will lead to more qualified candidates not able to become admins, less unqualified candidates that can become admins. Bureaucrats serve a very important role in that they provide a buffer for this sort of polarized debate. They are also trusted by others, so their choices can be trusted; this is not so with a simple community concensus where anybody has a say. Markovich292 06:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

At least one other Wikipedia has a straight up-or-down vote. There is a straight vote for members of ArbCom and the Board: why not for admins? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because voting (at least for last year, I haven't paid much attention this year) for members of ArbCom and the Board is enforced technically: only one vote per account, with suffrage requirements for each account. It's hard enough even to put a suggested minimum suffrage in the RFA page without raising a stink, let alone place technical enforcement on each RFA. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 13:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to say that ArbCom is a "straight" vote. Last time it was floated as a "JW picks, community endorse"; eventually it went ahead on a basis that appeared to be essentially, "community votes, JW vetoes". In eventual application, it transpired to be "community votes, JW adds 'captain's picks'." Alai 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your idea would be great if we used the dictionary definition of "concensus" (everyone agreeing, or at least agreeing not to go against what everyone else wants), but we don't, we actually use a definition closer to "supermajority", with a bit of uneven weighting of votes. If we were aiming for everyone accepting a decision, your idea would work (although, it wouldn't really be needed, as it's obvious when everyone agrees because people stop speaking), but when we're actually aiming for a supermajority it won't work because there will always be some people who disagree with the community decision and they'll keep changing the header. -- Tango 12:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

extending time for community consensus

While the above probably goes too far in eliminating bureaucrat discretion, one area I think RFA could benefit from would be to increase the frequency with which B'crats use their discretion to extend to time an RfA is ongoing, as long as discussion/consensus is still developing. A lot of RfAs are dead in the water by the time the seventh day comes around, but sometimes they are still developing a sense of what the community feels, and another day or two, or even twelve hours, sometimes, would give some people the freedom to change their mind, consider an 11th-hour comment/discovery, and the like. Just my thought. -- nae' blis 19:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noted with concern that some people have hinted that bureaucrats are the final deciders of who is fit for adminship, and that they have some sort of veto over promoting particular people. This is most definitely not the case. Bureaucrats' opinions are worth nothing more than other admins or, indeed, non-admin members of the Wikipedia community. Users who are promoted to bureaucrat status by the community are given that role for technical purposes, not as some special executive role with power to overrule "community consensus". Until the process is changed, the votes on RfA are taken to represent community consensus, and it is a dereliction of their duties to the community for bureaucrats to ignore an RfA's result. The only ones who can overrule such a representation of consensus are the ArbCom and Office, and if they want to do so they should do so explicitly and transparently. - Mark 05:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You may believe that's the case; you may think that should be the case; I may tend to agree with you. But I wouldn't bet against a change in process being effected by the 'crats themselves, arbcom, Jimmy Wales, or the Foundation, rather than necessarily with explicit community approval, given the mess that policy-making is in, and the formal suspension of logic at WP:IAR. Alai 07:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore all rules does require logic, thanks :-) Kim Bruning 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR defeats logic by its present construction. Whether logic would be required in either devising or applying a different version that wasn't essentially a restatement of the Epimenides paradox is an interesting hypothetical. (Its current policy box stating its "deep, subtle meaning" seems to be more or less an exercise in waving hands desparately and intoning "ignore the man behind the curtain".) A more accurate statement as to what it requires would be an opinion as to what's necessary to improve or maintain WP, and a sufficiently large hammer to beat down the amount of opposition engendered thereby. Alai 12:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I tend to feel that anything here that could be described as having a "deep, subtle meaning" is so obscure as to be useless within the context of a global effort to build an encyclopedia. If a concept can not be described in clear, precise terms that can be understood across cultures, national borders, and continents, then its usefulness is extremely suspect. -- Durin 12:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR is understood across cultures. Just not by everyone. It's to do with being a Mapper or a Packer [8]. Stephen B Streater 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, it's to do with poor governance being passed off as poor understanding on the part of those that would like a bit more transparency. This is not an "inventiveness" issue, this is a "my judgement trumps your judgement" issue. Alai 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue for me is how to try out new types of things. The original visionaries are mappers, but the packers are in a huge majority and the rules they create are limited and limiting. The rules are written by people who think they have covered every eventuality. But lack of foresight always means some things are beyond the scope of the rules. Stephen B Streater 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the ruleset is both imperfect and incomplete, so something like IAR that enables dealing with unforeseen circumstances is indeed essential. But that's not the problem with the current policy-negating policy: it's a lack of any expression of determining consensus, or of documenting the circumstance that led to the exception, in order that others can see the basis for it, and go forth and do likewise (or not). Rather, it encourages the mentality that there are some people that have licence to unilaterally implement their "common-sense", overriding both any past or present documented practice, or other people's common sense. Alai 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(Way too many asterisks :P) IAR should only be used when a process/policy is damaging the encyclopedia, which really isn't happening here. There is no reason to use it in order to make one person's opinion worth more than any other. That's an abuse of power. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 19:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't support overriding a genuine consensus in an irreversible way. But this is a wiki, so if an experiment doesn't work out, everything can be fixed. The important thing is to remain on good terms as personal relationships are harder to fix up. IAR must come with a willingness to engage and listen on all sides. Existing process should be the beginning not the end. Stephen B Streater 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

August 2006 RfA in Review	This month	Last month	Feb-Jul
New RfAs posted:	72	78	459
Successful RfAs:	27 (38%)	26 (33%)	183 (40%)
Early withdrawn RfAs:	29 (40%)	38 (49%)	191 (42%)
Self nominations:	38 (53%)	39 (50%)	216 (47%)
Noms with <1000 edits:	17 (24%)	19 (24%)	99 (22%)
Average number of votes per successful RfA:	76	97	86
Average number of votes per unsuccessful RfA:1	62	79	71
Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...
All RfAs	38%	33%	40%
>1000 edits	49%	44%	51%
>2000 edits	55%	48%	57%
>3000 edits	61%	53%	62%
>4000 edits	67%	49%	61%
>5000 edits	67%	50%	61%
Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...
>2 months	41%	35%	43%
>4 months	47%	38%	46%
>6 months	53%	42%	49%
Average edit count of successful noms:	7499	6776	6222
Average edit count of unsuccessful noms:	3888	3262	3052

1 - Unsuccessful nominations only includes those nominations that were not withdrawn early and were not successful. This is the smallest subset of RfAs, typically comprising less than 20% of all RfAs.

-- Durin 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that perhaps experience > x months might actually reduce the chance of an RFA succeeding again. I don't know, but at a guess, try x~=12? Could you take a look? Kim Bruning 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Over the last 6 months, there have been 156 nominations for people with >1 year of experience. Of those, 77 were successful for a rate of 49%. During the same time period, there were the same number of nominations for people with >.5 year and <1 year of experience. 74 were successful, for a rate of 47%. Others have noted a perceived drop off in success rates as experience/edit counts become high. Every analysis of the data that I've ever done has not supported this perception. Instead, what happens is past a certain point, the success rates plateau. -- Durin 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the most interesting statistic there is the drop in average votes. Could you put together statistics of average number of votes in a successful nom and average for an unsuccessful nom? It looks like less people voting means more promotions, although it could easilly be the converse that is true, or a combination of both. -- Tango 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've added the data to the table. See the note as well. Also note that doing average number of votes per withdrawn RfA would not be useful as the number of votes on withdrawn nominations varies significantly based on how rapidly they were withdrawn. -- Durin 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks! Interestingly, it's the opposite of what I was expecting (although it might be skewed by the withdrawals). Successful RFA's get more votes, so it would seem the increase in promotions and the drop in average votes are unrelated. Maybe lots of RFA-regulars were away on holiday in August and it's nothing more interesting than that... -- Tango 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Durin, for posting these very interesting stats. -- Guinnog 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Another request (thanks for doing all this): Can you add "<1000 edits" and "<2 months" rows? And if you've got nothing better to do, how about "number of RFAs that fit this category" columns? These stats are really interesting - please keep them coming. -- Tango 16:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I took a quick look. All nominees in the last six months with less than 1000 edits failed. Same for all nominees with less than 2 months experience. It's been a long time since we had a nom with <1000 edits succeed. The last one was User:Orioane who had 981 edits at time of nom. That nom went live December 5, 2005. Over the last 1000 RfAs, there have been just four successful noms with less than 1000 edits. Orioane as noted, User:Extreme Unction, User:Hermione1980, and User:NicholasTurnbull. -- Durin 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a simple one-place note of thanks for all those who were involved in my recent RfA: Thank you!

Best wishes,

David Kernow 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Any crat gonna close it? Raul promoted him this morning at close but it hasnt been closed off and people are still voting - is that a concious decision or did Raul forget :P --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)}( Review me) 14:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what people normally do, but I wrote You can stop now. He's been promoted. -- Tony Sidaway 14:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I closed it. -- Durin 14:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot. It's been a while since I closed one of these things. Raul654 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the relevant archival templates are:

• Template:Rfaf - closing header for failed RFAs
• Template:Rfap - closing header for passed RFAs
• Template:Rfab - closing footer for all RFAs

HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that this promotion was the sixth of six consecutive promotions done by six different bureaucrats. Good to see so many bureaucrats participating. NoSeptember 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

made a stat template {{ RfA/Stat}} that I have added the the tacher request for a live example, please tell me if it's fine. _{→ A z a Toth} 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only is this confusing to read with all the brackets and whatnot, it's bad because it stresses percentages. This isn't a vote, and even if it were, the crats aren't stupid, they can figure it out- percentages aren't important to anybody but them. The old tally was preferable to this one (though no tally is all is even better). -- Rory096 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Crats should be given room to decide a number of things (whether very new accounts should be discarded or not, the cutoff for a successful RFA, etc...). Not a vote. -- Interiot 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be some people discontented about RFA. I haven't looked into the particulars (yet?) but I figured it might be interesting to see how the other Wikipedias handle the issue. As such, I have attempted to compile and translate a bunch of admin facts, and listed them at Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. I'm not sure if this is useful or just trivial data, but there are some interesting differences that people may want to read about. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 14:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I only recently learned about the bureaucrat's noticeboard or, more precisely, I only recently discovered that there was content of interest to me being posted on that noticeboard.

Specifically, I discovered that there was discussion about the recent Carnildo RFA there. I think there is a recent set of posts that should be read by everybody interested in the longer term implications of the outcome of the Carnildo RFA.

What is posted below is part of a longer discussion but I am just cross-posting the posts that I think are most pertinent. The original posts can be found at WP:BN. -- Richard 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

... All of us who are regulars at RfA have standards of one sort or another on what makes a good admin. The core issue here is not what our standards are. The core issue is the schism that has recently generated between the RfA regulars and the bureaucrat corps. John Reid's question, though apparently regarded as insulting, is more directly aimed at addressing the schism. The bureaucrats have largely been silent of late in this debate. Now is not the time to be silent, to hope this problem will go away if enough silence is given. I'd strongly welcome a concerted effort on the part of the bureaucrats to address the schism that has generated. -- Durin 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've always been a staunch supporter of the bureaucrats, but I agree in this one that silence at this point is *not* constructive. As I recently discovered, being a bureaucrat is different from being an admin. While an admin may be "no big deal" to many people, a bureaucrat position is considered a "burden", one with a lot of work associated with it. My point here being that the issues raised recently should be addressed by bureaucrats, as interaction with the community is an important part of being one. Radiant's question was very helpful, I believe. -- RM 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been following all of the discussions here. So far, it seems to me like an enormous generalization. All of this has been generated by a decision made in Carnildo's RfA, not by any kind of decision making pattern on the part of the Bureaucracy in general. Taxman has been addressing the criticism that the decision (and its process) sparked. He has even admitted that the way in which the decision was made was perhaps not ideal. I have no reason to believe, given all that, that this situation would be repeated in the forseeable future.
To derive from this situation a conclusion that Bureaucrats could be looking to "ignore community consensus [and rule RfA with an iron fist]" is completely unjustified. Everyone who is a regular in RfA knows how the old saying goes: "we elect Bureaucrats to make the tough decisions, determine consensus in difficult scenarios", etc. Well, sometimes, in order to do our job, we need to think outside the box, try new solutions -- as former Bureaucrat Cecropia did in putting forward the 75-80% margin of discretion for promotion in troubled RfAs. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, it doesn't. People have spoken in the sense that the solution that Taxman tried did not suit them. We hear you. It is, after all, a human process.
Without going into any specifics of Carnildo's RfA, since I wasn't involved in the process of closing that RfA, let's also not forget that those difficult RfAs can yield complicated scenarios: in extreme cases, an apparent consensus in the neighborhood of circa 60% could, in theory, result in promotion, assuming a scenario where a RfA has been spammed by sockpuppets and bad-faith or bandwagonning !votes. After going through all the participants, a Bureaucrat could arrive at a real consensus, amidst the good-faith, well-reasoned participants, that would be sufficent for promotion -- and as a matter of fact, whenever people feel that we have not done that, they protest as well, asking if all we ever do is just count votes. At the same time, if a user is promoted whose RfA had an apparent consensus of 61%, people also protest, saying that we are overlooking consensus and doing as we please. It's almost a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. But that's fine: addressing people's concerns and answering questions as to how decisions are made (or how they were made) is part of the job -- and Taxman, as the principal Bureaucrat involved in closing Carnildo's RfA, has been doing it: he has not refused to answer questions as to how or why the decision was made as it was. It comes with the territory.
However, I'm sure you will agree that it is not possible for us to do our job as you yourselves would want us to do it if, whenever a controversial decision is made, people start asking us to line up and renew our "vows" to the project officially. The bottom line is: we are here to make those decisions. The community is not only free, but in fact expected to protest if it feels that any of our decisions were not in keeping with its expectations. But to go from there to suggest that Bureaucrats could be looking to ignore consensus altogether and take over RfA entirely is a giant leap, and one that is completely unjustified by the big picture.
Let's not confuse things: the Carnildo decision was not appreciated. That's one thing. Questioning the Bureaucrats' commitment to the project, that's quite different. Redux 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Redux's post above is the best that I've read in the torrent of words that has been written since the closing of the Carnildo RFA. I have posted in several messages on WP:RFA a call for the bureaucrats to "address people's concerns and answering questions as to how decisions are made" because, IMO, Taxman's failure to do this adequately is part of the reason that the discontent has been so high. I think the more extreme reactions have been "over the top" but I also think that it is inappropriate for bureaucrats to say "get over it, it's done, let's move on". If there is a significant discontent, it is incumbent on the bureaucrats to make an earnest effort to address the reasonable basis of that discontent. Redux's post is a first step in that direction.

Unfortunately, not everybody who watches WP:RFA watches WP:BN and so Redux's fine post is not likely to be read by all who should read it. For this reason, have crossposted it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.

-- Richard 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have not been following the discussion, a fair amount of recent comments added over the past week or two have been "archived". The edit history reveals all. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)